-- MySQL dump 10.9 -- -- Host: localhost Database: xemocne_rules -- ------------------------------------------------------ -- Server version 4.1.22-standard /*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT=@@CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT */; /*!40101 SET @OLD_CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS=@@CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS */; /*!40101 SET @OLD_COLLATION_CONNECTION=@@COLLATION_CONNECTION */; /*!40101 SET NAMES utf8 */; /*!40014 SET @OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS=@@UNIQUE_CHECKS, UNIQUE_CHECKS=0 */; /*!40014 SET @OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@@FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS, FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=0 */; /*!40101 SET @OLD_SQL_MODE=@@SQL_MODE, SQL_MODE='NO_AUTO_VALUE_ON_ZERO' */; /*!40111 SET @OLD_SQL_NOTES=@@SQL_NOTES, SQL_NOTES=0 */; -- -- Table structure for table `diffs` -- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `diffs`; CREATE TABLE `diffs` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment, `rule_id` int(11) default NULL, `rule_a` int(11) NOT NULL default '0', `rule_b` int(11) NOT NULL default '0', `diff` blob, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY `rule_a` (`rule_a`,`rule_b`), KEY `rule_id` (`rule_id`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=39289 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; -- -- Dumping data for table `diffs` -- LOCK TABLES `diffs` WRITE; /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `diffs` DISABLE KEYS */; INSERT INTO `diffs` VALUES (36326,101,494890,494891,'All players Players must always abide by all the rules then Rules currently in effect, in the form in which they are then currently in effect. The rules However, a Player besides the Speaker may always deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nWhatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it. Any change to the game state which would make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the Rules by any combination of actions by Players does not occur, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nThe Rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The The Initial Set consists of rules Rules 101-116 (immutable) (Immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). (Mutable).
\n'),(36327,101,494891,404386,''),(36328,101,404386,405624,'All Players must always abide by all the Rules currently in effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect. However, a Player besides the Speaker may always deregister rather than continueAny player is permitted to play. perform an action which is not regulated. An action is regulated if:
\n
\nWhatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing(a) the Rules, which action is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it. Any change to the game state which would make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the Rules by any combination of actions by Players does not occur, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. prohibited;
\n
\nThe Rules in(b) the Initial Set rules indicate that if certain conditions are in effect at satisfied, then some player is permitted to perform the beginning action;
\n
\n(c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor;
\n
\n(d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the first game. The Initial Set consists rules by any combinations of Rules 101-116 (Immutable) actions by players; or
\n
\n(e) the courts have held that the action is regulated, and 201-219 (Mutable). this finding has not been overturned.
\n
\nA player besides the Speaker is always permitted to deregister rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36329,101,405624,405690,'Any player is permittedThe 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 perform exist in the absense of an action explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any rule which is not regulated. An action is regulated if: would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or privileges.
\n
\n(a)i. Every person has the action is prohibited; privilege of doing what e wilt.
\n
\n(b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied, then someii. Every player is permitted has the right to perform the action; an action which is not regulated.
\n
\n(c)iii. Every person has the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required right to be invoke judgement, appeal a recordkeepor; judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em.
\n
\n(d)iv. Every person has the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible right to make arbitrary modifications refuse to the rules by any combinations become party to a binding agreement. The absense of actions by players; or a person\'s explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
\n
\n(e) the courts have held thatv. Every person has the action is regulated, and this finding right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not been overturned. had the reasonable opportunity to view.
\n
\nAvi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\nvii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nviii. Every player besides the Speaker is always permitted has the right to deregister rather than continue to play. Please
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36330,101,405690,405698,'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 absense 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.
\n
\ni. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.
\n
\nii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated.
\n
\niii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em.
\n
\niv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absense of a person\'s explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
\n
\n to view. review.
\n
\nvi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\nvii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nviii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36331,101,405698,405754,' the absense 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.
\n
\ni. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.
\n
\nii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated.
\n
\niii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em.
\n
\n The absense absence of a person\'s explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
\n
\nv. 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.
\n
\nvi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\nvii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nviii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36332,101,405754,405848,'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.
\n
\ni. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.
\n
\nii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated.
\n
\niii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em.
\n
\niv. 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.
\n
\nv. 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.
\n
\nvi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\nvii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\n player besides the Speaker has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36333,101,405848,460372,'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.
\n
\ni. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.
\n
\nii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated.
\n
\n to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or 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 order binding em. determination that e should be punished.
\n
\niv. 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.
\n
\nv. 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.
\n
\nvi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\nvii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nviii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36334,101,460372,496875,' specific rights or privileges. rights. 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. rights.
\n
\n the privilege right, though not necessarily the ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of doing what e wilt. changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
\n
\nii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated.
\n
\niii. 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.
\n
\niv. 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.
\n
\nv. 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.
\n
\nvi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\nvii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nviii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36335,101,496875,496900,'The rules may define personsWHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a game but as possessing specific rights. Be it hereby proclaimed a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants, BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may abridge, reduce, limit, substantially limit or remove a person\'s rights as defined rights. by this Rule, except through the explicit and legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of a person\'s rights. the rights contained herein.
\n
\ni. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
\n
\nii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated.
\n
\niii. 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.
\n
\niv. 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.
\n
\nv. 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.
\n
\nvi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\nvii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nviii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36336,101,496900,496902,'WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants, BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person\'s rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights contained herein.
\n
\ni. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
\n
\n Every player person has the right to perform an action which is not regulated. 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.
\n
\n to initiate a formal process refuse to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved. Every person has the right become party to cause formal reconsideration a binding agreement. The absence of any judicial determination that e should a person\'s explicit, willful consent shall be punished. considered a refusal.
\n
\n to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit, willful consent shall not be considered a refusal. bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review.
\n
\n Every person player has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had of participation in the reasonable opportunity to review. fora.
\n
\n Every player person has the right of participation in the fora. to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\n Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nviii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36337,101,496902,497369,'WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants, BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person\'s rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights contained herein.
\n
\ni. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
\n
\nii. 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.
\n
\niii. 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.
\n
\niv. 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.
\n
\nv. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
\n
\n or inaction. inaction. However, this right is not violated by replacing part or all of a penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when the rules governing penalties are amended.
\n
\nvii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than continue to play.
\n
\nPlease treat Agora right good forever.
\n'),(36338,103,494902,494903,' time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time there shall be is exactly one Speaker. The term "player" in the rules shall specifically include both Player who is the Voters and Speaker. The Speaker may not deregister or be deregistered for any reason, any other Rule to the Speaker. contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(36339,103,494903,404414,''),(36340,103,404414,405849,'At any time, there isThere should always be exactly one Player player who is the Speaker. The Speaker may not deregister or be deregistered for any reason, any No one other Rule to than a player can be Speaker, and there can never be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes the contrary notwithstanding. Speaker.
\n'),(36341,103,405849,406314,'There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker. No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never be more than one Speaker. If there is ever noThe Speaker then is the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker. Speaker\'s behalf.
\n'),(36342,103,406314,496785,'The Speaker is an imposed office.
\n
\nThe Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker\'s behalf.
\n'),(36343,103,496785,497364,' imposed office.
\n
\nThe Speaker is office, and the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker\'s behalf.
\n'),(36344,103,497364,496959,' imposed office, and office.
\n
\nThe Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker\'s behalf.
\n'),(36345,104,494907,497263,''),(36346,105,494916,494910,'A proposal generally can, as part rule change is any of its effect:
\n
\n(a) Enact a rule. When enacted, rules have Power 1.
\n
\n(b) Assign a number to a rule.
\n
\n(c) Modify the power, title, following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or text amendment of a rule.
\n
\n(d) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and mutable rule; or (2) the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain transmutation of an immutable rule into a record mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of it. any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)
\n'),(36347,105,494910,494912,'A rule change Rule Change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment
\n
\n* The enactment of a mutable rule; or (2) new Rule; * The repeal of an existing Rule; * The amendment of the transmutation text of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended existing Rule; or repealed; any rule * Any change to a substantive property of any status may be transmuted; no rule a Rule other than its text.
\n
\nA "substantive property of a Rule" is absolutely immune any property of that Rule (other than its text) which determines in part or in full the ability of that Rule to change.) govern by itself or in conjunction with other Rules.
\n'),(36348,105,494912,404466,''),(36349,105,404466,405776,'A Rule Change is any proposal generally can, as part of the following: its effect:
\n
\n* The enactment of(a) Enact a new Rule; * The repeal of an existing Rule; * The amendment of the text of an existing Rule; or * Any change to rule. When a substantive property of rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a Rule other number, which must be greater than its text. any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.
\n
\nA "substantive property(b) Modify the power, title, or text of a Rule" is any property rule. A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of that Rule (other a rule with power no greater than its text) which determines own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and without effect. A variation in part whitespace or capitalization in full the ability quotation of that Rule an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
\n
\n(c) Repeal a rule. A Proposal can repeal a rule with power no greater than its own. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to govern be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.
\n
\nThis rule provides the only mechanism by itself which rules can be enacted, modified, or in conjunction with other Rules. repealed.
\n'),(36350,105,405776,405741,'A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:
\n
\n(a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.
\n
\n(b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification 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.
\n
\n rule. A Proposal can repeal a rule with power no greater than its own. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it.
\n
\nThis rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted, modified, or repealed.
\n'),(36351,105,405741,405841,'A proposalWhere permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, as part of its effect: effect,
\n
\n(a) Enact enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the The new rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have has power equal to the minimum of four, the power of specified by the proposal, enacting instrument, defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the maximum power specified permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a title for the proposal. If new rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the title is not specified, new rule cannot be specified by the Rulekeepor may select enacting instrument; any title e sees fit. attempt to so specify is null and void.
\n
\n(b) Modify the power, title, or text of repeal a rule. A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause When a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification is repealed, it ceases to be void a rule, and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of this rule, but any other variation does. it.
\n
\n(c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and amend the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record text of it. a rule.
\n
\nThis(d) retitle a rule.
\n
\n(e) change the power of a rule.
\n
\nA rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
\n
\nAny 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.
\n
\nThis rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted, created, modified, or repealed. destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule.
\n'),(36352,105,405841,405753,'Where permitted by other rules, an instrumentA proposal generally can, as part of its effect, effect:
\n
\n(a) enact Enact a rule. The new When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the rule has shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to one if of the enacting instrument does not specify, proposal, and the maximum power permitted specified by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of proposal. If the new rule cannot be specified by title is not specified, the enacting instrument; Rulekeepor may select any attempt to so specify is null and void. title e sees fit.
\n
\n(b) repeal Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. When A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule is repealed, it ceases to be have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a rule, modification specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace, capitalization, or substitution of section labels with the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain same ordinal position (e.g. 1 / a record / i, 2 / b / ii, etc.) in the quotation of it. an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
\n
\n(c) amend Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and the text of Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a rule. record of it.
\n
\n(d) retitle a rule.
\n
\n(e) change the power of a rule.
\n
\nA rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
\n
\nAny 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.
\n
\nThisThis rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, enacted, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule. repealed.
\n'),(36353,105,405753,496695,'A proposalWhere permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, as part of its effect: effect,
\n
\n(a) Enact enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the The new rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have has power equal to the minimum of four, the power of specified by the proposal, enacting instrument, defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the maximum power specified permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a title for the proposal. If new rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the title is not specified, new rule cannot be specified by the Rulekeepor may select enacting instrument; any title e sees fit. attempt to so specify is null and void.
\n
\n(b) Modify the power, title, or text of repeal a rule. A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause When a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification is repealed, it ceases to be void a rule, and without effect. A variation in whitespace, capitalization, or substitution of section labels with the same ordinal position (e.g. 1 / Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a / i, 2 / b / ii, etc.) in the quotation record of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. it.
\n
\n(c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and amend the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record text of it. a rule.
\n
\nThis(d) retitle a rule.
\n
\n(e) change the power of a rule.
\n
\nA rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
\n
\nAny 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.
\n
\nThis rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted, created, modified, or repealed. destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule.
\n'),(36354,105,496695,494911,'Where permitted by other rules,A Rule Change is any of the following: 1) the enactment of a new Rule (a "Creation"). ; 2) the amendment of an existing Rule (an "Amendment"); 3) the repeal of an existing Rule (a "Repeal"); 4) the modification of an instrument generally can, as part of its effect, existing Rule\'s Mutability Index (a "Mutation").
\n
\n(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 instrumentAdditional Rule Changes may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the new rule cannot be specified created by the enacting instrument; appropriate legislation. No Rule Change may directly change any attempt to so specify is null and void.
\n
\n(b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record part of it.
\n
\n(c) amend the text of a rule.
\n
\n(d) retitle a rule.
\n
\n(e) change Game State other than the Rules. No Rule may be changed except by the power means of a rule.
\n
\nA rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
\n
\nAny ambiguity in the specification Change of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization type specified in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
\n
\nThis 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. Rules.
\n'),(36355,105,494911,497412,'A Rule Change is any of the following: 1) the enactment of a new Rule (a "Creation"). ; 2) the amendment of an existing Rule (an "Amendment"); 3) the repeal of an existing Rule (a "Repeal"); 4) the modification ofWhere permitted by other rules, an existing Rule\'s Mutability Index (a "Mutation"). instrument generally can, as part of its effect,
\n
\nAdditional Rule Changes may be created by appropriate legislation. No Rule Change may directly change any part(a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of the Game State other than power specified by the Rules. No Rule 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 changed except specified by the means enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) amend the text of a rule.
\n
\n(d) retitle a rule.
\n
\n(e) change the power of a rule.
\n
\nA rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule Change changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
\n
\nAny ambiguity in the specification of a type specified rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the Rules. quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
\n
\nThis 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n2007 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(36356,105,497412,494915,'Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, as part of its effect,
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) amend the text of a rule.
\n
\n(d) retitle a rule.
\n
\n(e) change the power of a rule.
\n
\nA rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
\n
\nAny 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.
\n
\nThis 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n2007 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(36357,106,494922,494924,'All rule changes proposed Proposals made and distributed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if they receive it receives the required number of votes and quorum if Quorum is achieved.
\n'),(36358,106,494924,404484,''),(36359,106,404484,405576,'All Proposals madeDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and distributed in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if PRESENT, and only if it receives by default, the required number eligible voters are the active players, the adoption index is the adoption index of votes the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and if Quorum unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is achieved. set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36360,106,405576,405802,'DeterminingA 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.
\n
\nA 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. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor. Speaker.
\n
\nThe default adoption index of a proposal is one. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.
\n
\nIf 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. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36361,106,405802,405812,'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.
\n
\nA 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. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker.
\n
\nThe default adoption index of a proposal is one. an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.
\n
\nIf 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. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36362,106,405812,405837,'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.
\n
\nA 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. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker. proposal.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.
\n
\nIf 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. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36363,106,405837,405952,'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.
\n
\nA 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. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal.
\n
\n of 1 less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.
\n
\nIf 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. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36364,106,405952,406046,'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.
\n
\nA 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. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\n and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.
\n
\nIf 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. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36365,106,406046,406401,'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.
\n
\nA 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. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\nDetermining 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.
\n
\n a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer It may modify its adoption index be set by announcement. 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.
\n
\nIf 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. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36366,106,406401,406058,''),(36367,106,406058,406428,'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.
\n
\n Pool. That player is its author (syn. proposer). The proposer author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. announcement.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nDetermining 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nIf 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. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36368,106,406428,406577,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nDetermining 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n effect. This
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36369,106,406577,432292,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adoptThe adoption index of a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, integral multiple of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and proposer at the adoption index is the adoption index time of the proposal. submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nThe adoption index ofDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by Agoran decision. For this decision, the proposer at adoption index is the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A Proposal with an Adoption Index adoption index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. the proposal.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36370,106,432292,496738,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n the proposal. proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36371,106,496738,497194,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36372,106,497194,497314,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute the 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. Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.
\n
\nIf the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active player to distribute a Proposal, than any player may do so Without 3 Objections.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36373,106,497314,497342,'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.
\n
\n Pool. That player is its The author (syn. proposer). proposer) of a proposal is the player who submitted it. The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\nA player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute the 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. Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.
\n
\nIf the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active player to distribute a Proposal, than any player may do so Without 3 Objections.
\n
\nA person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from a person (other than its author, and author) unambiguously identified as such by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission. when it was submitted.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36374,106,497342,497406,'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.
\n
\nA 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. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the player who submitted it. The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
\n
\nA player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute the 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. Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.
\n
\n Proposal, than then any player may do so Without 3 Objections.
\n
\nA co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author) unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was submitted.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n'),(36375,106,497406,497463,'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.
\n
\n player submits CAN create a proposal by publishing it ("submitting") a body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the player who submitted it. The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. Pool.
\n
\nA player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute the 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. Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.
\n
\nIf the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so Without 3 Objections.
\n
\nA co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author) unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was submitted.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(36376,106,497463,497464,' the gamestate. gamestate. The text of a proposal CANNOT change after it is distributed; however, this does not affect any other entity (proposal or otherwise) solely because that entity has the same text.
\n
\nA player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nA player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute the 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. Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.
\n
\nIf the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so Without 3 Objections.
\n
\nA co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author) unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was submitted.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(36377,106,497464,494923,'A proposal is a document outlining changes to beAll Proposals made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. The text of a proposal CANNOT change after it is distributed; however, this does not affect any other entity (proposal or otherwise) solely because that entity has the same text.
\n
\nA player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal Pool.
\n
\nA player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute the 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. Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.
\n
\nIf the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so Without 3 Objections.
\n
\nA co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author) unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was submitted.
\n
\nThe adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may shall be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
\n
\nDetermining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
\n
\nIf the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, adopted if and unless other rules prevent only if it from taking effect, its power is set to receives the minimum required number of four and its adoption index, votes and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect.
\n
\nPreventing a proposal from taking effect if Quorum is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009 achieved.
\n'),(36378,107,494939,494940,' proposed rule change Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in print valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. on. For the purposes of this rule, print and electronic media, including mailing lists, are valid media.
\n'),(36379,107,494940,404468,''),(36380,107,404468,405568,'Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in valid media) before itAn Agoran decision is voted on. If adopted, initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must guide play in contain the form in following information:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the election for Scorekeepor" or "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which it was voted on. For persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the purposes eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose.
\n
\n(c) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(d) Any additional information required by the rules for this rule, print and electronic media, including mailing lists, are announcement.
\n
\nThe publication of such a valid media. notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days.
\n'),(36381,107,405568,405737,'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. To be valid, this notice must contain the following information:
\n
\n "the election for Scorekeepor" or "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(d) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement.
\n
\nThe publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days.
\n'),(36382,107,405737,405904,' decision. To be valid, this This notice must contain is invalid if it lacks any of the following information: information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(d) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement.
\n
\nThe publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days.
\n'),(36383,107,405904,406126,'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:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(d) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement.
\n
\n seven days. days, unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action.
\n'),(36384,107,406126,406261,'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:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) The identity A clear indication of the vote collector. options available.
\n
\n(d) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(e) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement.
\n
\nThe publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action.
\n'),(36385,107,406261,406580,'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:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) A clear indication of the options available.
\n
\n(d) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(e) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement.
\n
\n days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for some a decision to cannot be shorter than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action.
\n'),(36386,107,406580,432334,'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:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) A clear indication of the options available.
\n
\n(d) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(e) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement.
\n
\n seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action. days.
\n'),(36387,107,432334,496728,'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:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) A clear indication of the options available.
\n
\n(d) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n information required defined by the rules for this announcement. as essential parameters.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(36388,107,496728,496961,'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:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) A clear indication of the options available.
\n
\n(d) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential parameters.
\n
\n decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. days. The vote collector for a decision with less than two options CAN end the voting period by announcement, provided that e resolves the decision in the same message.
\n'),(36389,107,496961,497425,'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:
\n
\n(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) A clear indication of the options available.
\n
\n(d) The identity of the vote collector.
\n
\n(e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential parameters.
\n
\nThe 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 with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. The vote collector for a decision with less than two options CAN end the voting period by announcement, provided that e resolves the decision in the same message.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(36390,108,494950,494952,'No rule changeA given form of a Rule may take effect not have effects earlier than the moment it came to have that form. The form of the completion a Rule consists of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule change text and other substantive properties.
\n
\nNo Rule Change may have retroactive application.
\n'),(36391,108,494952,404500,''),(36392,108,404500,494951,'A given form of aNo Rule Change may not have effects take effect earlier than the moment of the adoption of the Proposal in which it is contained, if it came to have that form. The is a proposed Rule Change, or the moment of the adoption of the current form of the Rule which requires the Rule Change, if it is a non-proposed Rule consists of its text and other substantive properties. Change.
\n
\nNo Rule Change may have retroactive application.
\n'),(36393,108,494951,494953,'No Rule Change may take effect earlier than the moment of the adoption of the Proposal in which it is contained, if it is a proposed Rule Change, or the moment of the adoption of the current form of the Rule which requires the Rule Change, if it is a non-proposed Rule Change.
\n
\nNo Rule Change may have retroactive application.
\n'),(36394,109,494956,494959,'The Speaker Promotor shall give each proposed rule change submitted Proposal a number Number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number Number of a Proposal shall be the proposal least integer greater than all other Numbers previously assigned to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal Proposal (including numbers assigned to amend Proposals later determined to have been incorrectly submitted), or transmute it. 301, whichever is greater.
\n'),(36395,109,494959,494960,'TheAt the time e distributes it, the Promotor shall give each submitted Proposal a Number for reference. The Number of a Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all other Numbers previously assigned to a Proposal (including numbers assigned to Proposals later determined to have been incorrectly submitted), or 301, whichever is greater.
\n'),(36396,109,494960,494957,'At the time e distributes it, the PromotorThe Speaker shall give each Proposal which has been proposed in the proper way a Number for reference. The Number of assigned to a given Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all other Numbers previously assigned to a Proposal (including numbers assigned to Proposals later determined to have been incorrectly submitted), assigned, or 301, whichever is greater. greater. No Proposal may have the same Number as any previous Proposal.
\n
\nWhen a Rule is Created, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Create it. Once created, a Rule shall not have its Number changed, except as specified in the Rules.
\n'),(36397,109,494957,494958,'The Speaker shall give each Proposal which has been proposed in the proper way a Number for reference. The Number assigned to a given Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all Numbers previously assigned, or 301, whichever is greater. No Proposal may have the same Number as any previous Proposal.
\n
\n the Rules. Rules. (*Was: 1057*)
\n'),(36398,109,494958,494961,'The Speaker shall give each Proposal which has been proposed in the proper way a Number for reference. The Number assigned to a given Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all Numbers previously assigned, or 301, whichever is greater. No Proposal may have the same Number as any previous Proposal.
\n
\nWhen a Rule is Created, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Create it. Once created, a Rule shall not have its Number changed, except as specified in the Rules. (*Was: 1057*)
\n'),(36399,112,494966,494967,'The state of affairs that constitutes winningWays for a Player to Win a Game may not be altered from achieving n points to any defined by other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points Rules. Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be changed, and rules defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player, provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at that time for that establish Player.
\n
\nIf no Rule defining a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted way to Win exists, then a Player Wins upon each Winter and Summer Solstice, and (while they upon each Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, with the Winner being chosen randomly by the Speaker from among all Voters not on Hold who are mutable) be amended or repealed. not ineligible to Win because of an applicable Win-preventing Rule.
\n'),(36400,112,494967,494968,'Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules. Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player, provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at that time for that Player.
\n
\n no other Rule defining a way to Win exists, then a Player Wins upon each Winter and Summer Solstice, and upon each Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, with the Winner being chosen randomly by the Speaker from among all Voters not on Hold who are not ineligible to Win because of an applicable Win-preventing Rule.
\n'),(36401,112,494968,494969,'Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules. Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player, provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at that time for that Player.
\n
\nIf no other Rule defining a way to Win exists, then a Player Wins upon each Winter and Summer Solstice, and upon each Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, with the Winner being chosen randomly by the Speaker from among all Voters not on Hold who are not ineligible to Win because of an applicable Win-preventing Rule.
\n'),(36402,112,494969,404636,''),(36403,112,404636,405033,'Ways for aA Player is eligible to Win a the Game while e meets at least one Win Condition, and does not meet any Win-Preventing Conditions.
\n
\nAny Player may be defined publish a Notice of Victory that lists all Players eligible to Win the Game, and (for each listed Player) identifies at least one Win Condition met by other Rules. Also, ways that Player. If this information is accurate, then the listed Players Win the Game.
\n
\nThis is the only way to prevent Win the Game. If a Player from Winning a would otherwise Win the Game may be defined by due to other Rules. A Player Wins whenever Rules, then e instead meets a Win condition defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player, provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at that time Condition for that Player. one week (and may Win the Game as described above).
\n'),(36404,112,405033,494971,'A Player is eligible to Win the Game while e meets at least one Win Condition, and does not meet any Win-Preventing Conditions.
\n
\nAny Player may publish a Notice of Victory that lists all Players eligible to Win the Game, and (for each listed Player) identifies at least one Win Condition met by that Player. If this information is accurate, then the listed Players Win the Game.
\n
\nThis is the only way to Win the Game. If a Player would otherwise Win the Game due to other Rules, then e instead meets a Win Condition for one week (and may Win the Game as described above).
\n'),(36405,113,494974,494975,'A player Player may always has the option to forfeit deregister from the game Game rather than continue to play or incur a game Game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, deregistration, in the judgment of the player Player to incur it, may be imposed.
\n'),(36406,113,494975,494976,' Player other than the Speaker may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed.
\n'),(36407,114,494978,494980,'ThereIt must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption possible to make arbitrary modifications to the ruleset by some combination of rule changes must never player actions. Any change to the gamestate that would cause this condition to become completely inpermissible. false does not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(36408,114,494980,494979,'ItThere must always be possible to make arbitrary modifications to the ruleset by some combination at least one Rule with a Mutability Index of player actions. 1. Any change to the gamestate that Rule Change which would cause result in this condition to become becoming false does shall not occur, have any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. legal force.
\n
\nThe Adoption of Rule Changes shall never become completely impermissible.
\n'),(36409,115,494984,404467,'Rule changes Changes that affect rules Rules needed to allow or apply rule changes Rule Changes are as permissible as other rule changes. Rule Changes. Even rule changes Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule change No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule. Rule.
\n'),(36410,115,404467,494985,'Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply Rule Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a Rule.
\n'),(36411,201,494991,494994,' a proposed rule change Proposal is defined to be 20% achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater.
\n
\nAny determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall use the number of Voters Players or Players at the beginning of the prescribed voting period Voting Period for that proposal Proposal. (*Was: 201*)
\n'),(36412,201,494994,494995,'Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater.
\n
\nAny determination of whetherQuorum for a Proposal has made Quorum shall use is calculated using the number of Players or Registered Players at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. (*Was: 201*) Proposal.
\n'),(36413,201,494995,494997,'Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater.
\n
\n Registered Players Players, and their Hold statuses (On or Off), at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.
\n'),(36414,201,494997,494998,' by 35% one-third of all Active Players, or 50% one-fifth of all the Players not On Hold, Players, whichever is greater.
\n
\nQuorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of Registered Players, and their Hold statuses (On or Off), at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.
\n'),(36415,201,494998,494999,' Active Players, Players not denied voting privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.
\n
\n calculated using the number of Registered Players, and their Hold statuses (On or Off), at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. Proposal, using information current at that time.
\n'),(36416,201,494999,495000,' Active Players Voters not denied voting privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.
\n
\nQuorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current at that time.
\n'),(36417,201,495000,495001,' Active Voters Players not denied voting privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.
\n
\nQuorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current at that time.
\n
\nOther Rules may provide an explicit method whereby a Player who has not voted on a Proposal may be considered, for the purposes of Quorum, to have voted on that Proposal.
\n'),(36418,201,495001,495002,' for a an Ordinary Proposal is achieved if a vote is three Oligarchs cast votes on that Proposal by one-third of Active Players not denied voting privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater. the Proposal.
\n
\n a Democratic Proposal is calculated at achieved if a vote is cast on the beginning Proposal by one-third of the prescribed Voting Period for Active Players who are not Denied on that Proposal, using information current at that time. or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.
\n
\nOther Rules may provide an explicit method whereby a Player who has not voted onQuorum for a Proposal may be considered, for is calculated at the purposes beginning of Quorum, to have voted on the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current at that Proposal. time. However, if an Ordinary Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal during its Voting Period (or vice versa), then Quorum is recalculated at the time of the change.
\n'),(36419,201,495002,495003,'Quorum for anAn Ordinary Proposal is achieved achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs cast votes on the Proposal. it.
\n
\nQuorum for aA Democratic Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on the Proposal by achieves Quorum if: (1) at least one-third of all Active Players who are not Denied on that Proposal, Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.
\n
\nQuorum Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal is calculated at shall be determined from the beginning number of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current Players and number of Active Players at the time that time. However, if an Ordinary Proposal becomes a Democratic the Proposal during its Voting Period (or vice versa), then Quorum is recalculated was distributed, or at the time of the change. it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.
\n'),(36420,201,495003,495004,'An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs cast votes on it.
\n
\n Active Noisy Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.
\n'),(36421,201,495004,495005,' on it, and the Speaker did not Veto it.
\n
\nA Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if: (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.
\n'),(36422,201,495005,495006,'An Ordinary Proposal ordinary proposal achieves Quorum quorum if at least three Oligarchs oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not Veto it.
\n
\nA Democratic Proposal democratic proposal achieves Quorum quorum if: (1) at least one-third one third of all Active Noisy Players, active noisy players, or (2) at least one-fifth one fifth of all Players non-frozen players cast votes on it. Quorum
\n
\nQuorum for a Democratic Proposal democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of Players non-frozen players and number of Active Noisy Players active noisy players at the time that the Proposal proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n'),(36423,201,495006,495007,'An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it.
\n
\nA democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it.
\n
\nQuorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nA Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.
\n'),(36424,201,495007,495008,' on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\nA democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it.
\n
\nQuorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nA Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.
\n'),(36425,201,495008,495009,'An(a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\nA(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) if at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it.
\n
\nQuorum(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nA Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it. later.
\n'),(36426,201,495009,495010,' three oligarchs shareholders cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\n(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it.
\n
\n(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n'),(36427,201,495010,495011,' three shareholders players cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\n(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it.
\n
\n(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n'),(36428,201,495011,495012,'(a) An ordinary proposal achievesThe quorum if at least three players cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\n(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least for an Agoran decision is one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it.
\n
\n(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made eligible voters, rounded up, with a democratic proposal, whichever minimum of five (unless there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the quorum level is later. the number of eligible voters).
\n'),(36429,201,495012,495013,'The quorumQuorum for an Agoran decision is one third N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters, voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless there are fewer this is greater than five eligible voters, N, in which case the quorum level is the number of eligible voters). N).
\n'),(36430,201,495013,495014,'Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which quorum is N).
\n
\nVoters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered eligible for the purposes of this rule.
\n'),(36431,201,495014,495015,' voters at the start of the with a positive voting period), limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N).
\n
\nVoters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered eligible for the purposes of this rule. N).
\n'),(36432,201,495015,495016,' is N). N, or the decision is whether to approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero).
\n'),(36433,201,495016,495017,' is N, or the decision is whether to approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero). N).
\n'),(36434,201,495017,494992,' for an Agoran decision a Proposal is N/3 (where N defined as 35% of all Players, or 50% of all Voters not On Hold, whichever is greater.
\n
\nAny determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall use the number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum Players or Voters at the beginning of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N). the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.
\n'),(36435,201,494992,494993,'Quorum for a Proposal is defined as 35% of all Players, or 50% of all Voters not On Hold, whichever is greater.
\n
\n that Proposal. Proposal. (*Was: 201*)
\n'),(36436,201,494993,494996,' is defined as achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all Voters the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater.
\n
\nAny determination of whetherQuorum for a Proposal has made Quorum shall use is calculated using the number of Registered Players or Voters at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. (*Was: 201*)
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36437,204,495022,495027,'A proposalLet there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Speaker. Only Voters may make proposals. As Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving a proposal, the Speaker Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the proposal Proposal a number Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players.
\n
\nAt the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal along which is required to be submitted with its number it, but eir failure to all players do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.
\n'),(36438,204,495027,495028,' shall distribute post the numbered Proposal to all Players. the Public Forum accompanied by its Number, the name of the Player who Proposed the Proposal, and its Adoption Index.
\n
\nAt the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.
\n'),(36439,204,495028,495029,' of 3 5 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall post the Proposal to the Public Forum accompanied by its Number, the name of the Player who Proposed the Proposal, and its Adoption Index.
\n
\nAt the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.
\n'),(36440,204,495029,495030,'Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 5 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. AsAs soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal receives a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received new Proposal, the Promotor e shall post the Proposal assign to the Public Forum accompanied by its Number, the name of the Player who Proposed the Proposal, and its Adoption Index. it a Number as specified in other Rules.
\n
\nAtWithin seven days of the receipt of a Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the same time e Promotor shall distribute any text not part this Proposal to the Public Forum, accompanied by its Number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and its Adoption Index.
\n
\nThe failure of the proposal which is required Promotor to be submitted distribute any of the above accompaniments with it, but eir failure to do so shall a Proposal does not deprive the act distribution of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. any legal effect.
\n'),(36441,204,495030,495031,'As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules.
\n
\nWithin seven days ofAs Soon As Possible after the receipt of a Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received the Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute this Proposal it to the Public Forum, accompanied by its Number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and its Adoption Index. a clear indication of whether the Proposal is Disinterested.
\n
\nThe failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect.
\n'),(36442,204,495031,495032,' other Rules. Rules. E shall then place this Proposal on the Proposal Queue.
\n
\nAs Soon As Possible after the receiptThe Proposal Queue is a list of the Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute it to the Public Forum, accompanied by its Number, the identity Proposals, sorted in order of its Proposing Entity, and a clear indication descending Priority. Proposals of whether the Proposal is Disinterested. same priority are listed in the order they were proposed.
\n
\nThe failureA Proposal\'s Priority is an integer value. All Proposals initially have a Priority of the zero.
\n
\nThe Promotor to distribute any of shall publish the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive Queue weekly. This publication shall include the distribution number, title, priority, and time of proposal, for each proposal in the Proposal Queue. If a Proposal\'s Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then this change shall also be published. The actual text of any legal effect. the Proposals in the Queue need not be published.
\n'),(36443,204,495032,495033,' shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules. E shall then place this Proposal on in the Proposal Queue.
\n
\nThe Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed.
\n
\nA Proposal\'s Priority is an integer value. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This publication shall include the number, title, priority, and time of proposal, for each proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal\'s Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then this change shall also be published. The actual text of the Proposals in the Queue need not be published.
\n'),(36444,204,495033,495034,'As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue.
\n
\nThe Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed.
\n
\n integer value. multiple of the MUQ of P-Notes. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero.
\n
\n weekly. This This publication shall include the number, title, priority, and time of proposal, Proposal, for each proposal Proposal in the Queue. If If a Proposal\'s Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then this change shall also be published. The actual text of the Proposals in the Queue need not be published.
\n'),(36445,204,495034,495035,'As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue.
\n
\nThe Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed.
\n
\n an integer multiple of the MUQ of P-Notes. integer. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This publication shall includeA Proposal\'s Priority Cost is an integer multiple of the title, priority, and time MUQ of Proposal, P-Notes. The base Priority Cost for each Proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal\'s Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then Proposal is 1, but this change shall also be published. The actual text of the Proposals in the Queue need not may be published. altered by other Rules.
\n'),(36446,204,495035,495036,' Proposal Queue. Pool.
\n
\nThe Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed.
\n
\nAA Proposal\'s Priority is an integer. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero.
\n
\nA Proposal\'s Priority Distribution Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ of P-Notes. The Papyri. The base Priority Distribution Cost for of a Proposal is 1, but this may be altered by other Rules.
\n'),(36447,204,495036,495037,'As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nA Proposal\'s Distribution Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ of Papyri. TheThe base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but this may be altered by other Rules. Rules as long as it remains a positive integer.
\n'),(36448,204,495037,495024,'AsA Proposal by a Voter shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e the Mighty Speaker shall place this assign the Proposal in a Number and distribute the Proposal Pool. along with its number to all Players.
\n
\nThe base Distribution Cost Mighty Speaker may also make Proposals. The Mighty Speaker must process all pending voter-submitted Proposals first, and may then Process Proposals of the Mighty Speaker, assigning these Proposals a Proposal is 1, but this may be altered by other Rules number and distributing them in the same fashion as long as it remains a positive integer. any other Proposal.
\n'),(36449,204,495024,495025,' a Voter Player shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty Speaker. As As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Speaker shall distribute the numbered Proposal along with its number to all Players.
\n
\nThe Mighty Speaker may also make Proposals. The Mighty Speaker must process all pending voter-submitted Proposals first, and may then Process Proposals of the Mighty Speaker, assigning these Proposals a number and distributing them in the same fashion as any other Proposal. Players.
\n'),(36450,204,495025,495026,' all Players. Players. (*Was: 415*)
\n'),(36451,204,495026,495038,'A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Speaker shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. (*Was: 415*)
\n'),(36452,205,495040,495042,' prescribed voting period Voting Period for a proposal shall be one week, Proposal is ten days, beginning at the time the Speaker distributes the proposal Proposal is distributed to all players. Players.
\n'),(36453,205,495042,495044,''),(36454,205,495044,495045,' is ten seven days, beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all Players.
\n'),(36455,205,495045,495046,' all Players. Players. Other Rules may specify other Voting Periods for particular types of Proposals.
\n'),(36456,205,495046,495047,'The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days, beginning at the time when the Proposal is distributed to all Players. distributed. Other Rules may specify other lengths of Voting Periods for particular types classes of Proposals.
\n'),(36457,205,495047,495048,'The Voting PeriodWhen the rules calls for a Proposal is seven days, beginning when an Agoran decision to be made, the Proposal is distributed. Other Rules may specify other lengths decisionmaking process takes place in the following three stages:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the decision: The decisionmaking process begins when a person authorized to initiate the decision announces the matter to be decided, including any additional information the rules require to be in that announcement.
\n
\n(b) Voting Periods of the people: Immediately thereafter, the voting period for particular classes the decision begins. During the voting period, eligible voters may vote on the matter, as described elsewhere.
\n
\n(c) Resolution of Proposals. the decision: After the voting period for the decision ends, any person authorized by the rules to resolve the decision may announce that the matter has been decided, specifying the option selected by Agora.
\n'),(36458,205,495048,495049,' three stages: stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n the decision: The decisionmaking process begins when a person authorized to initiate the decision announces the matter to be decided, including any additional information the rules require to be in that announcement.
\n
\n(b) decision. (b) Voting of the people: Immediately thereafter, the voting period for the decision begins. During the voting period, eligible voters may vote on the matter, as described elsewhere.
\n
\n(c) people. (c) Resolution of the decision: After the voting period for the decision ends, any person authorized by the rules to resolve the decision may announce that the matter has been decided, specifying the option selected by Agora. decision.
\n'),(36459,205,495049,495050,' the decisionmaking decision-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision.
\n'),(36460,205,495050,495041,'When the rules callsThe prescribed Voting Period for an Agoran decision to a Proposal shall be made, the decision-making process takes place in seven days, beginning at the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of time that the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision. Proposal is distributed to all Players.
\n'),(36461,205,495041,495043,' Proposal shall be seven is ten days, beginning at the time that the Proposal is distributed to all Players. Players.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36462,206,495052,495053,'Each Voter Player has exactly one vote. The Speaker two votes per Proposal, unless another Rule specifically says otherwise, and no Player shall have more than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule may not vote. say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in addition to a Player\'s first vote may only be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, as specified in other Rules.
\n'),(36463,206,495053,495054,'Each PlayerA Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities designated by the Rules to be Voting Entites are Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
\n
\nEach Voting Entity has two votes per on a Proposal, unless another Rule specifically says otherwise, and otherwise. However, no Player such Entity shall have more than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in addition to a Player\'s an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in other Rules.
\n'),(36464,206,495054,495055,' Voting Entites Entities are Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
\n
\nEach Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in addition to an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in other Rules.
\n'),(36465,206,495055,495057,''),(36466,206,495057,495058,'A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
\n
\n votes in addition to an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in other Rules.
\n'),(36467,206,495058,495059,'A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
\n
\n of Extra Votes, Voting Tokens, as specified in other Rules.
\n'),(36468,206,495059,495060,'A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
\n
\n the contrary. The casting of any votes may only be achieved by the casting of Voting Tokens, as specified in other Rules. contrary.
\n'),(36469,206,495060,495061,' Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
\n
\nEach Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule may say to the contrary.
\n'),(36470,206,495061,495062,'A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting Entities.
\n
\nEachAll players with less than 15 Blots are Voting Entities.
\n
\nEach Voting Entity has two may cast a number of votes on a Proposal, unless another Rule says otherwise. However, no such Proposal up to the Maximum Votes for that Entity most recently reported in an Accountor\'s Report at the time the Proposal is distributed. If the Maximum Votes for a Voting Entity has never been published at the time the Proposal is distributed, that Entity shall have more than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule may say cast up to the contrary. 5 Votes on that Proposal.
\n'),(36471,206,495062,495063,'A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No EntityAn entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal unless it if and only if e is a Voting Entity, Voter and only those Entities designated by is not Denied for that Proposal at the Rules time e attempts to be Voting Entities are Voting Entities. cast eir vote.
\n
\nAll players with less than 15 Blots are Voting Entities.On a Democratic Proposal, each entity which is permitted to vote on that Proposal may cast a number of votes up to their Maximum Votes as shown in the most recently published Accountor\'s Report at the time that the Proposal is distributed, unless other Rules prohibit them from doing so. If the Maximum Votes for a Voter have never been published at the time a Proposal is distributed, their Maximum Votes is 5 for that Proposal.
\n
\nEach Voting Entity may castAll Players are Voters. However, a number of votes on a Proposal up to the Maximum Votes for that Entity most recently reported in an Accountor\'s Report at the time the Proposal Player is distributed. If the Maximum Votes Denied for a Voting Entity all Proposals while e has never been published at the time the Proposal is distributed, that Entity may cast up to 5 Votes on that Proposal. more than 3 Blots.
\n'),(36472,206,495063,495056,'An entityA Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal if and only if e unless it is a Voter Voting Entity, and is not Denied for that Proposal at only those Entities designated by the time e attempts Rules to cast eir vote. be Voting Entities are Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
\n
\nOnEach Voting Entity has two votes on a Democratic Proposal, each entity which is permitted to vote unless another Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more than five votes on that Proposal any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule may cast a number say to the contrary. The casting of any votes up to their Maximum Votes as shown in addition to an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the most recently published Accountor\'s Report at the time casting of Extra Votes, if that the Proposal is distributed, unless permitted, as specified in other Rules prohibit them from doing so. If the Maximum Votes for a Voter have never been published at the time a Proposal is distributed, their Maximum Votes is 5 for that Proposal. Rules.
\n
\nAll Players are Voters. However, a Player is Denied forThis Rule defers to all Proposals while e has more than 3 Blots. other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36473,207,495065,495067,'VotersPlayers may vote either for cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or against ABSTAIN for any proposal Proposal within its prescribed voting period. Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the vote Vote must be received by the Speaker by Counting Assessor or posted to the end of Public Forum during the prescribed voting period. Voting Period. The Speaker may not Assessor will reveal any votes until the end of the prescribed voting period. Any Voter who does not legally vote within Votes cast by each Player only after the prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have abstained. Voting Period has ended.
\n'),(36474,207,495067,495068,'PlayersVoting Entities may cast of a Vote vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for on any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the Vote a vote by a Player or a Group must be received by the Counting Assessor or posted to the Public Forum during the prescribed Voting Period. The conditions under which a Vote by a Voting Entity which is not a Player or a Group (if any such exist) is legally cast are described in other Rules. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Player Voting Entity only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended.
\n'),(36475,207,495068,495069,'Voting Entities may castA Vote upon a vote Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN on any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote by Vote upon a Player or Proposal.
\n
\nA Vote cast upon a Group must be received Proposal by a Voting Entity which has an Executor is cast at the Counting Assessor or posted time its Executor either posts it to the Public Forum or otherwise sends it to the Assessor. A Vote is legally cast if it is cast during the prescribed Voting Period. The conditions under which Period of that Proposal, and if that Voting Entity is entitled to cast a Vote on that particular Proposal.
\n
\nA Vote cast by a Voting Entity which is does not a Player or a Group (if any such exist) have an Executor is legally cast are described at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Voting
\n
\nThis Rule in no way authorizes any Entity only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended. to cast Votes upon Proposals.
\n'),(36476,207,495069,495070,'A Vote Voting Entity votes upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym when, during the Voting Period of one that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of these). Something which is not one of these the vote or votes e is not a Vote casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is authorized to cast those votes on that Proposal. Once cast, a Proposal. vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voting Entity which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require.
\n
\nA Vote cast vote upon a Proposal by a Voting Entity which has an Executor is cast at the time its Executor either posts it to the Public Forum must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or otherwise sends it to the Assessor. A Vote is legally cast if it ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is cast during the Voting Period not one of that Proposal, and if that Voting Entity these is entitled to cast not a vote upon a Vote on that particular Proposal.
\n
\nA Vote vote cast by a Voting Entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.
\n
\n any Entity entity to cast Votes votes upon Proposals.
\n'),(36477,207,495070,495071,'A Votingan Entity votes upon a Proposal when, during the Voting Period of that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is authorized to cast those votes on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voting Entity which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require.
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.
\n
\n by a Voting an Entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.
\n
\nThis Rule in no way authorizes any entity to cast votes upon Proposals.
\n'),(36478,207,495071,495072,'an EntityA Voter authorised to cast votes upon on a particular Proposal when, during the Voting Period of that Proposal, e informs may do so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is authorized to cast those votes on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voting Entity Voter which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require.
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.
\n
\n an Entity entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.
\n
\nThis Rule in no way authorizes any entity to cast votes upon Proposals. Rules.
\n'),(36479,207,495072,495073,'A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require.
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.
\n
\nA vote cast by an entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.
\n'),(36480,207,495073,495074,' Proposal. Once cast, a A Voter may change or cancel eir vote cannot be changed or cancelled votes during the Voting Period by informing the Voter which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require. Assessor.
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.
\n'),(36481,207,495074,495075,'A Voter authorised to cast votesAn eligible voter on a particular Proposal may do so only by informing Agoran decision submits a ballot to the Assessor vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which one of the vote or votes available options e is casting on that Proposal. A Voter may change or cancel eir vote or votes during selects. To be valid, the Voting Period by informing ballot must satisfy the Assessor. following conditions:
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must(a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the voting period for the decision.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be one decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period.
\n
\nThe strength of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which option is not one the number of these is not a vote upon a Proposal. valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther 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.
\n'),(36482,207,495075,495076,'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:
\n
\n submitted by an eligible voter during the voting period for the decision. decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period.
\n
\nThe strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther 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.
\n'),(36483,207,495076,495077,'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:
\n
\n(a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period.
\n
\nAmong 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.
\n
\nThe strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther 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.
\n'),(36484,207,495077,495066,'An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishingVoters may cast of a valid notice indicating which one Vote of the available options e selects. To be valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:
\n
\n(a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for the decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies legally cast, the option selected Vote must be received by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot Counting Speaker during the voting period.
\n
\nAmong the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only prescribed Voting Period. The Speaker will reveal the first N submitted Votes cast 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.
\n
\nThe strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther rules may place further constraints on the validity of ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would loosen Voter only after the constraints specified by this rule. prescribed Voting Period has ended.
\n'),(36485,208,495080,495081,'AtAs soon as possible after the end of the prescribed voting period Voting Period on a proposal, given Proposal, the Speaker Assessor shall reveal publish all votes legally cast on that proposal. If the Speaker\'s consent may be required for a proposal to be adopted, then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e refuses to consent to the proposal, it shall be assumed Votes cast upon that e consents. Proposal.
\n'),(36486,208,495081,404496,''),(36487,208,404496,405586,'As soon as possibleThe vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is authorized to resolve that decision, and does so by publishing a valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved, indicating the option selected by Agora. To be valid, this notice must satisfy the following conditions:
\n
\n(a) It is published after the end voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
\n
\n(c) It clearly identifies the options available.
\n
\n(d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the Voting Period voters\' valid ballots on a given Proposal, the Assessor various options.
\n
\nEach Agoran decision shall publish all have at most one vote collector at a time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message initiating the Votes cast upon decision, and can only be changed as specified by other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule that Proposal. would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
\n'),(36488,208,405586,406127,' for a particular an unresolved Agoran decision is authorized to may resolve that decision, and does so it by publishing a valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved, 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 notice announcement must satisfy the following conditions:
\n
\n(a) It is published after the voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
\n
\n(c) It clearly identifies the options available.
\n
\n(d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\' valid ballots on the various options.
\n
\n decision shall have at most has exactly one vote collector at a time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message initiating the decision, and can only be changed as specified by other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule. collector.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
\n'),(36489,208,406127,406262,'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:
\n
\n(a) It is published after the voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
\n
\n It clearly identifies the options available.
\n
\n(d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\' valid ballots on the various options.
\n
\nEach Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
\n'),(36490,208,406262,432342,' decision may CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL do so resolve it as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:
\n
\n(a) It is published after the voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
\n'),(36491,208,432342,432348,'The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:
\n
\n(a) It is published after the voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n vote collector. collector, defaulting to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the current holder of that position.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
\n'),(36492,208,432348,497427,'The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:
\n
\n(a) It is published after the voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the current holder of that position.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n2005 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(36493,209,495088,495094,'The required votesWhen the Voting Period for a proposal to be adopted is as follows: For a proposal which would directly alter Proposal has ended, the actions Votes which are required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker: a) a simple majority of all votes have been legally cast, if cast shall be counted by the Speaker consents; b) Speaker. The Proposal shall then be assigned a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, Voting Index, as follows: the Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes in favor, the Speaker does not consent; For Voting Index shall be zero; in all other proposals, a simple majority cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes legally cast. This rule defers to rules which set Votes in favor divided by the required number of votes Votes opposed.
\n
\nIf the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for proposals which propose to transmute a rule. the given Proposal, then that Proposal shall pass. If the Voting Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Speaker shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail.
\n'),(36494,209,495094,495095,' the Speaker. Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor divided by the number of Votes opposed.
\n
\n the Speaker Assessor shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail.
\n'),(36495,209,495095,495096,'When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor divided by the number of Votes opposed.
\n
\n Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, then that Proposal shall pass. If the Voting Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Assessor shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail. passes. Otherwise, it fails.
\n'),(36496,209,495096,495097,' the Votes uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no Votes votes opposed, and at least one Vote vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes votes in favor divided by the number of Votes votes opposed.
\n
\n the given Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal passes. is adopted. Otherwise, it fails.
\n'),(36497,209,495097,495098,'When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed, and at least one vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes opposed.
\n
\nIf the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails.
\n
\nA Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal may not be adopted (synonymous with the Proposal passing) except as described in this Rule.
\n'),(36498,209,495098,495099,'When(a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed, against, and at least one vote in favor, for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes in favor for divided by the number of votes opposed. against.
\n
\nIf(b) If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the Proposal, or Proposal (or if both equal Unanimity, Unanimity), and there were at least three votes in favor of if Quorum for the Proposal, Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, Otherwise, it fails.
\n
\nA(c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal may not cannot be adopted (synonymous with the Proposal passing) except as described in this Rule.
\n'),(36499,209,495099,495100,'(a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of votes against.
\n
\n than or equal to the Adoption Index for the Proposal (or if both equal Unanimity), Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, Otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n(c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except as described in this Rule.
\n'),(36500,209,495100,495101,'(a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of votes against.
\n
\n than one, and greater than or equal to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, Otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n(c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except as described in this Rule.
\n'),(36501,209,495101,495102,'(a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votesTo determine which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned option on a Voting Index, as follows: if particular Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index collector shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, perform the Voting Index shall be zero; following steps in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by order after the number of votes against. voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) If(a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the Voting Index is greater than one, and greater than or equal rules require em to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, invalidate, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. no others.
\n
\n(c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in(b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. If this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except number is less than the quorum and there is more than one available option, then the option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum.
\n
\n(c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal or referendum, e shall determine the voting index as described in this Rule. follows:
\n
\n(1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but
\n
\n(2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is zero; otherwise,
\n
\n(3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST.
\n
\nIf the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED. Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is an election, then as long as quorum is achieved, the vote collector has the privilege to choose any option the strength of which meets or exceeds that of any other option to be the option selected by Agora.
\n'),(36502,209,495102,495103,'To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the following steps in order after the voting period has ended.
\n
\n(a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to invalidate, and no others.
\n
\n(b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the quorum and there is more than one available option, then the option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum.
\n
\n a proposal or referendum, proposal, e shall determine the voting index as follows:
\n
\n(1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but
\n
\n(2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is zero; otherwise,
\n
\n(3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST.
\n
\nIf the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED. Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is an election, then as long as quorum is achieved, the vote collector has the privilege to choose any option the strength of which meets or exceeds that of any other option to be the option selected by Agora.
\n'),(36503,209,495103,495104,'To determine which option on a particularThe outcome of an Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the following steps in order after the voting period has ended. is determined as follows.
\n
\n(a) E shall invalidate any If there is more than one available option, and the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots which is less than quorum, then the rules require em to invalidate, and no others. outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum.
\n
\n(b) E shall count If the number decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the voting index is the ratio of the strength of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If this number the voting index is less greater than the quorum 1, and there is more greater than one available option, or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the option selected by Agora outcome is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, ADOPTED; otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(c)(d) If the decision is whether to adopt approve a proposal, e shall determine the voting index as follows: dependent action:
\n
\n(1) if If the strength of FOR OBJECT is positive and greater than or equal to the strength of AGAINST is zero, objection index (if any), then the voting index outcome is Unanimity; but REJECTED.
\n
\n(2) if If the strength of FOR SUPPORT is zero, then less than the voting support index (if any), then the outcome is zero; otherwise, REJECTED.
\n
\n(3) the voting index is If the ratio of the strength of FOR SUPPORT to the combined strength of AGAINST. SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to the majority index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\nIf the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.(4) Otherwise, the option selected by Agora outcome is REJECTED. APPROVED.
\n'),(36504,209,495104,495105,'The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n is whether to adopt a proposal, ordinary or democratic, 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.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:
\n
\n(1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to the objection index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.
\n'),(36505,209,495105,495106,'The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, 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.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:
\n
\n(1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to the objection index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.
\n'),(36506,209,495106,495089,'The outcome of an Agoran decision required votes for a Proposal to be adopted is determined as follows. follows: For a Proposal which would directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Mighty Speaker:
\n
\n(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, regardlessa) a simple majority of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. all votes legally cast, if the Mighty Speaker consents;
\n
\n(b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting index is the ratiob) a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, if the strength Mighty Speaker does not consent;
\n
\nFor all other Proposals, a simple majority of FOR to the strength votes legally cast.
\n
\nIn case of AGAINST. If a tie in a simple-majority Vote, the voting index Mighty Speaker may, but is greater than 1, and greater than not required to, cast a tie-breaking Vote. The Mighty Speaker receives no Point awards or equal penalties for doing so.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to rules which set the decision\'s adoption index, then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED. required Number of Votes for Proposals which propose to Transmute a Rule.
\n'),(36507,209,495089,495090,'The required votesWhen the Voting Period for a Proposal to has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be adopted counted by the Speaker. If a Proposal is as follows: For not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast then AGAINST votes, then that Proposal shall take effect. If such a Proposal which would directly alter has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes, then the actions which are required Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is Contested, and the number of and/or forbidden to FOR votes cast is at least twice the Mighty Speaker: number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall take effect.
\n
\na)If a simple majority of all votes legally cast, if Rule will change the Mighty Speaker consents;
\n
\nb) a 2/3 majority actions required of all votes legally cast, if or forbidden to the Mighty Speaker does not consent;
\n
\nFor all other Proposals, a simple majority of votes legally cast.
\n
\nIn case of a tie in a simple-majority Vote, Speaker, and the Mighty Speaker may, but is not required to, cast a tie-breaking Vote. opposed the Proposal, then that Proposal shall be considered Contested. The Mighty Speaker receives no Point awards or penalties for doing so.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to rules which set shall declare if e opposes the required Number of Votes for Proposals which propose to Transmute a Rule. Proposal when e distributes the Proposal.
\n'),(36508,209,495090,495092,' Speaker. If Let the number of Votes in favor of a Proposal is not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast then AGAINST votes, then divided by the number of Votes opposed to that Proposal shall take effect. be known as the Voting Factor for that Proposal. If such the Voting Factor exceeds the mandated Adoption Factor for a given Proposal, then that Proposal has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes, shall be Adopted. If the Voting Factor exactly equals the required Adoption Factor, then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is Contested, and the number of FOR votes cast is at least twice the number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall take effect. fail.
\n
\nIf a Rule will change the actions required of or forbidden to the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal, then that ProposalThe Adoption Factor for all Proposals shall be considered Contested. The Speaker shall declare if e opposes the Proposal when e distributes 1, unless otherwise specified in the Proposal. Rules. An Adoption Factor of unanimity is a special case: It is defined as an absence of Votes in opposition, with at least one Vote in favor.
\n'),(36509,209,495092,495091,' Speaker. Let the number of Votes in favor of If a Proposal divided by the number of Votes opposed to that Proposal be known as the Voting Factor for that Proposal. If the Voting Factor exceeds the mandated Adoption Factor for a given Proposal, is not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast then AGAINST votes, then that Proposal shall be Adopted. take effect. If the Voting Factor exactly equals the required Adoption Factor, such a Proposal has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes, then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is Contested, and the number of FOR votes cast is at least twice the number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall fail. take effect.
\n
\nThe Adoption Factor for all ProposalsIf a Rule will change the actions required of or forbidden to the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal, then that Proposal shall be 1, unless otherwise specified in considered Contested. The Speaker shall declare if e opposes the Rules. An Adoption Factor of unanimity is a special case: It is defined as an absence of Votes in opposition, with at least one Vote in favor. Proposal when e distributes the Proposal. (*Was: 658*)
\n'),(36510,209,495091,495093,' Speaker. If Let the number of Votes in favor of a Proposal is not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast then AGAINST votes, then divided by the number of Votes opposed to that Proposal shall take effect. be known as the Voting Factor for that Proposal. If such the Voting Factor exceeds the mandated Adoption Factor for a given Proposal, then that Proposal has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes, shall be Adopted. If the Voting Factor exactly equals the required Adoption Factor, then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is Contested, and the number of FOR votes cast is at least twice the number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall take effect. fail.
\n
\nIf a Rule will change the actions required of or forbidden to the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal, then that ProposalThe Adoption Factor for all Proposals shall be considered Contested. The Speaker shall declare if e opposes the Proposal when e distributes 1, unless otherwise specified in the Proposal. Rules. An Adoption Factor of unanimity is a special case: It is defined as an absence of Votes in opposition, with at least one Vote in favor. (*Was: 658*) 761*)
\n'),(36511,210,495108,495110,'An adopted rule changeA Proposal which is Adopted takes full effect at the moment of time date- stamped on the first message sent by the Speaker to reach the Public Forum announcing the completion results of the vote voting on that adopted it. Proposal.
\n'),(36512,210,495110,495111,' the Speaker Assessor to reach the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that Proposal. Proposal.
\n
\nIf the message sent by the Assessor announcing the results of the voting on a Proposal also contains the results of voting upon other Proposals, all such Proposals shall take effect at the same time, but in order by increasing Proposal Number.
\n'),(36513,210,495111,495112,'A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date- stamped on the first message sent by the Assessor to reach the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that Proposal.
\n
\n in the order by increasing Proposal Number. in which they were distributed.
\n'),(36514,210,495112,495109,'A Proposal which is AdoptedAn adopted rule change takes full effect at the time date- stamped on the first message sent by moment of the Assessor to reach completion of the Public Forum announcing vote that adopted it. The moment of the results completion of the voting on that Proposal.
\n
\nIf vote is defined by the date and time given in the line starting with "Date:" of the Nomic listserver message sent send by the Assessor Benevolent Speaker, announcing the results result of the voting vote on a Proposal also contains the results of voting upon other Proposals, all such Proposals shall take effect at the same time, but in the order in which they were distributed. corresponding proposal.
\n'),(36515,210,495109,495113,'An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. The moment of the completion of the vote is defined by the date and time given in the line starting with "Date:" of the Nomic listserver message send by the Benevolent Speaker, announcing the result of the vote on the corresponding proposal.
\n'),(36516,212,495117,495120,'IfThere are two or more mutable types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts between rules conflict with one another, or if the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts between rules with different Mutability Indices.
\n
\n(a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices:
\n
\nIf two or more immutable rules Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the rule Rule with the lowest ordinal number lower Number takes precedence. If
\n
\nIf at least one of the rules Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule Rule (or type of rule), Rule), then such provisions shall supersede supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If
\n
\nIf two or more rules Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. governs.
\n
\n(b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices:
\n
\nIn a conflict between rules with different Mutability Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index.
\n'),(36517,212,495120,495121,'There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts between rules with different Mutability Indices.
\n
\n(a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices:
\n
\nIfIf two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.
\n
\nIf If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence.
\n
\nIf If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n
\n(b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices:
\n
\nIn a conflict between rules with different Mutability Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. governs.
\n'),(36518,212,495121,495123,' precedence. If
\n
\nIf 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
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n'),(36519,212,495123,495124,' same Mutability Indices Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n'),(36520,212,495124,495125,'If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n the precedence determining precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence.
\n
\nIf two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n'),(36521,212,495125,495126,' lower Number ID number takes precedence.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n'),(36522,212,495126,495118,'IfThere are two or more Rules types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts between rules with the same Power conflict Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts between rules with one another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes precedence. different Mutability Indices.
\n
\nIf at least one of the(a) Conflicts between 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 with the numerical method for determining precedence. same Mutability Indices:
\n
\nIf all two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.
\n
\nIf at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly say says of itself that their precedence relations are determined by some other it defers to another Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations (or type of the precedence-determining rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence.
\n
\nIf two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n
\n(b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices:
\n
\nOther Rules define the resolution of conflicts between Rules with Mutability Indices of Unanimity and Rules with Mutability Indices of 1.
\n
\nOtherwise, in a conflict between rules with different Mutability Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index.
\n'),(36523,212,495118,495119,''),(36524,213,495128,495137,'If players Players disagree about the legality of a move Move or the interpretation or application of a rule, Rule, then a player Player may invoke judgement Judgement by submitting a statement Statement for judgement Judgement to the Speaker. Disagreement, Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this rule, Rule, may be created by the insistence of any player. Player. When judgement Judgement is invoked, the Speaker Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Speaker The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the statement Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all players. Players.
\n
\nNo Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36525,213,495137,495138,'If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then aAny Player may invoke Judgement who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a Statement Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for For the purposes purpose of this Rule, may be created by and other Rules, the insistence submission of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk Call for Judgement shall constitute proof of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity existence of the Judge, to all Players. a dispute.
\n
\nNo Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which doThe Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not contain this sentence. later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it.
\n'),(36526,213,495138,495139,'Any Player who seeks person may seek formal resolution of any dispute pertaining to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts. For Courts or Justiciar. Any document submitted to the purpose Clerk of this and other Rules, the submission of Courts or Justiciar and which is clearly marked as a Call for Judgement shall constitute proof of is a Call for Judgement. (Although any CFJ may be filed with the existence of Justiciar, Players are encouraged to file with the CotC unless there is a dispute. good reason not to.)
\n
\nAny document submitted toFor the Clerk purpose of the Courts this and which is clearly marked as other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement is CFJ shall constitute proof of the existence of a Call for Judgement. dispute.
\n
\n a Call for Judgement, CFJ along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it. it. However, if the CFJ is submitted to the Justiciar, e shall perform all duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to that CFJ.
\n'),(36527,213,495139,495140,' may seek request formal resolution of any a dispute pertaining to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar. Any document submitted to the Clerk Courts. The submission of the Courts or Justiciar and which is clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement. (Although any CFJ may be filed with the Justiciar, Players are encouraged to file with constitutes proof of the CotC unless there is existence of such a good reason not to.) dispute.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this and other Rules, the submission ofA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ shall constitute proof of may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the existence Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of a dispute. these things.
\n
\n Clerk of the Courts shall distribute publish the text of a CFJ CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including, (including but not limited to, to Arguments and Evidence) not Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it. However, if the CFJ is submitted to the Justiciar, e shall perform all duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to that CFJ.
\n'),(36528,213,495140,495141,'Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a dispute.
\n
\nA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.
\n'),(36529,213,495141,495142,' by submitting publishing a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts. (CFJ). The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a dispute.
\n
\nA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things.
\n'),(36530,213,495142,495143,'Any person may request formal resolution ofA judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a dispute pertaining procedure to this Nomic by publishing settle a Call for Judgement (CFJ). The submission matter of a CFJ constitutes proof controversy. There are subclasses of the existence judicial case with particular features defined by other rules. Subclasses of such a dispute. judicial case exist only as defined by the rules.
\n
\nA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material;The Clerk of the Judge Courts (CotC) is encouraged, but not required, to take notice an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the status of these things. all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.
\n'),(36531,213,495143,495144,'A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nJudicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(36532,213,495144,495145,' controversy. There are subclasses of
\n
\nEach 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. rules. A judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n cases other (other than appeal cases cases, which have historically been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(36533,213,495145,495146,'A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy.
\n
\n rules. Defining a subclass of judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nJudicial 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.
\n'),(36534,213,495146,495130,'A judicial case, also known asIf Players disagree about the legality of a call for judgement (CFJ), is Move or the interpretation or application of a procedure to settle Rule, then a matter of controversy.
\n
\nEach judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular features as defined Player may invoke Judgement by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules. Defining submitting a subclass Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of judicial case is secured, with a power threshold the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of 1.7. A judicial case\'s subclass CAN this Rule, may be specified created by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry.
\n
\nThe the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the status Rules. The Clerk of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.
\n
\nJudicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers, Courts must then distribute the Statement to be assigned by judged, along with the Clerk identity of the Courts. Judge, to all Players.
\n'),(36535,213,495130,495132,' Courts. Disagreement, Disagrement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. Players.
\n
\nNo Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.
\n'),(36536,213,495132,495134,'If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.
\n
\n per week. week. (*Was: 407*)
\n'),(36537,213,495134,495136,'If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.
\n
\nNo Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week. (*Was: 407*)
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36538,214,495148,495154,'If judgement was invoked byUpon receipt of a Voter, then Call For Judgement (CFJ), the first Judge to be selected Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomply appoint a Player to judge Judge that statement CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the Speaker. If judgement was invoked by set of Players excluding those:
\n
\n(i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the Speaker, CFJ; (iv) whose Move the first Judge legality of which is to be selected shall determined by the CFJ; (v) who have declined to be a randomly selected Voter. In all cases, if a Appointed as Judge beyond on the first must be selected CFJ; (vi) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to judge a statement, it shall be Appointed as Judge on a randomly selected Voter. particular CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The Voter thus selected may declining Player shall not be the player most recently selected Eligible to serve as Judge for that statement, nor may e CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the player CotC.
\n
\nIf for any reason a Player who invoked judgement. has been selected as a Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ.
\n'),(36539,214,495154,495155,'Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomply appoint a Player to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding those:
\n
\n (iv) whose Move the legality of which is to be determined by the CFJ; (v) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (vi) (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules.
\n
\n the CotC. CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player.
\n
\n shall randomly select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ.
\n'),(36540,214,495155,495156,' shall randomply randomly appoint a Player to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding those:
\n
\n(i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the CFJ; (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player.
\n
\nIf for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ.
\n'),(36541,214,495156,495157,'Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding those:
\n
\n(i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the CFJ; (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules.
\n
\n declining Player. Player. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nIf for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ.
\n'),(36542,214,495157,495158,'Upon receipt ofWhenever there is a Call For for Judgement (CFJ), which has been neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Player Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of as soon as possible after this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be condition becomes known to the set Clerk of Players excluding those: the Courts.
\n
\n(i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the CFJ; (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of whichThe Clerk shall be given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by distribute the declining Player. The Clerk identity of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nIf for any reason a Player who has been selected as a is assigned to Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible Player to Judge as soon as possible after the CFJ. selection is made.
\n'),(36543,214,495158,495160,' which has been is neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nThe Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made.
\n'),(36544,214,495160,495161,' is a an open Call for Judgement which is neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is has been assigned to Judge that CFJ, as its Judge, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ Court shall, as soon as possible after being made aware of this condition becomes known condition, randomly select a Player to be assigned as its Judge. This selection shall be made from amongst all those Players eligible to serve as the Clerk Judge of the Courts. that CFJ.
\n
\nTheOnce assigned as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the Judge of that CFJ until e is recused from that CFJ, or e ceases to be a Player.
\n
\nThe Clerk shall distribute announce the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made. made.
\n
\nA CFJ is "open" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to that CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is not open is closed.
\n'),(36545,214,495161,495149,'Whenever there is an open Call forWhen Judgement to which no Player has been assigned as its Judge, the Clerk of the Court shall, as soon as possible after being made aware of this condition, randomly select called for, a Player to be assigned as its Judge. This selection shall be made Judge is randomly selected from amongst all those Players eligible to serve as among the Judge of that CFJ.
\n
\nOnce assigned as Players (excluding the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the Judge of that CFJ until e is recused from that CFJ, or e ceases who called for Judgement). The Player selected has 3 days in which to be a Player.
\n
\nThe Clerk shall announce accept or refuse the identity of appointment by posting to the listserv. Any Player who is assigned does not respond to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is made.
\n
\nA CFJ is "open" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining deemed to that CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is not open have refused appointment. If a selected Player refuses appointment, then a further random selection is closed. made from the remaining pool.
\n'),(36546,214,495149,495150,'When Judgement has been called for,Upon receipt of a Judge is randomly selected from among Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Players (excluding Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player who called to be Judge excluding those on hold, calling for Judgement). The Player selected has 3 days judgement, whose move is under judgement in which to accept said CFJ, or refuse the have declined appointment by posting on this CFJ.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the listserv. Any CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player who does shall not respond be eligible to selection in 3 days serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall be penalized 10 also lose two points, and is deemed one of which shall be given to have refused appointment. If the CotC.
\n
\nUpon receiving notice of a selected Player refuses appointment, then declining to serve the CotC shall randomly appoint a further random selection is made new Judge from the remaining pool. eligible Player. (*Was: 647*)
\n'),(36547,214,495150,495152,' hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.
\n
\n (*Was: 647*) 647/793*)
\n'),(36548,214,495152,495151,' hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.
\n
\nUpon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player. (*Was: 647/793*)
\n'),(36549,214,495151,495153,' hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.
\n
\n (*Was: 647/793*) 647/793/890*)
\n'),(36550,214,495153,495159,'Upon receipt ofWhenever there is a Call For for Judgement (CFJ), which has been neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Player Judge to be assigned to Judge excluding those on hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on that CFJ as soon as possible after this CFJ. condition becomes known to the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nPlayers may decline to serve on a particular case by notifyingThe Clerk shall distribute the CotC within 72 hours identity of appointment. The declining the Player shall not be eligible who is assigned to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.
\n
\nUpon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve CFJ as soon as possible after the CotC shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player. (*Was: 647/793/890*) selection is made.
\n'),(36551,214,495159,495162,'Whenever there is a Call for Judgement which has been neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nThe Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made.
\n'),(36552,215,495164,495167,' the Speaker Clerk of the Courts has distributed the statement Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal judgement. Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a judgement Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new the CotC randomly selects another Judge is selected. A judgement from among eligible Players. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that judgement Judgement to the Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that judgement Judgement to all players Players as soon as possible.
\n'),(36553,215,495167,495168,' e is penalized 10 points gains 3 Blots and the CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible Players. A A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. possible.
\n
\nBlots gained via this rule are reported to the Tabulator by the CotC.
\n'),(36554,215,495168,495169,'After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the StatementThe Player assigned to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails Call for Judgement is required to deliver either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within this time, seven days of when e gains 3 Blots and the CotC randomly selects another was assigned to Judge from among it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible Players. A Judgement is delivered by submitting to Judge that Judgement CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits an Infraction to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. Courts and breaing bearing a penalty of three Blots.
\n
\nBlots gained via this rule are reportedHowever, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Tabulator by Judge assigned to that CFJ at the CotC. moment e becomes ineligible.
\n'),(36555,215,495169,495170,' and breaing bearing a penalty of three Blots.
\n
\nHowever, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.
\n'),(36556,215,495170,495171,' commits an the Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots.
\n
\nHowever, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.
\n'),(36557,215,495171,495173,''),(36558,215,495173,495174,' within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If after e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be is assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots. it.
\n
\nHowever,Failure to do so is the Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the CotC. At the time of the report of infraction, if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed then the penalty is 1 VT and the Judgement or dismissal is legal even though delivered late. Otherwise the penalty is 3 Blots, and the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge shall be assigned in the usual manner.
\n
\nA Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted by the CotC.
\n
\nHowever, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.
\n'),(36559,215,495174,495175,'The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days after e is assigned to Judge it.
\n
\n of infraction, the Infraction, if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed then the penalty is 1 VT and the Judgement or dismissal is legal even though delivered late. Otherwise the penalty is 3 Blots, and the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge shall be assigned in the usual manner.
\n
\nA Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted by the CotC.
\n
\nHowever, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.
\n'),(36560,215,495175,495176,'The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days after e is assigned to Judge it.
\n
\n CotC. At the time of the report of the Infraction, This is a Class 0.2 Infraction if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed then at the penalty is 1 VT and time the Infraction is reported (such Judgement or dismissal is legal even though delivered late. Otherwise the penalty late); otherwise it is a Class 3 Blots, and Infraction, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge shall be assigned in the usual manner.
\n
\nA Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted by the CotC.
\n
\nHowever, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.
\n'),(36561,215,495176,495177,'The Player assigned to Judge a Call Deliberation Period for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that any particular CFJ within begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the assigned deliberation period, which identity of the Judge and ends seven days after e is assigned to Judge it. later.
\n
\nFailure to do so isAt any point after the Infraction end of Judging Late, detected and reported by the CotC. This is Deliberation Period for a Class 0.2 Infraction particular CFJ, if the CFJ Judge has been Judged not yet returned Judgement or dismissed at Dismissed that CFJ, then the time Clerk of the Infraction is reported (such Judgement or dismissal is legal even though delivered late); otherwise it is Courts may Recuse that Judge from the case and assign a new one as usual. If this occurs, then the Recused Judge shall commit the Class 3 Infraction, Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the Judge becomes Clerk of the Courts, and shall furthermore be ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge shall any future CFJ\'s until such time as e requests to be assigned in the usual manner. made eligible again by publicly posting such a request.
\n
\nA Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within sevenSeven days after the end of the assigned deliberation period Deliberation Period, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal submitted after this time is not legal CFJ and shall not be accepted by commits the CotC. Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this Rule.
\n
\nHowever, ifIf the Player assigned to Judge returned a CFJ ceases to be eligible before judging Judgement or dismissing Dismisses that CFJ, CFJ after the end of the Deliberation Period but before being Recused as Judge, then e is neither required nor permitted to either return shall commit the Infraction of Judging a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases Bit Late, a Class 0.2 Infraction to be detected and Reported by the Judge assigned to that CFJ at Clerk of the moment e becomes ineligible. Courts.
\n'),(36562,215,495177,495178,' for any particular a CFJ begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge Judge, and ends seven days later.
\n
\nAt any point afterIn the week following the end of the Deliberation Period for a particular CFJ, Period, if the Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed that the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may Recuse that recuse the Judge from the case CFJ and assign it to a new one as usual. If this occurs, then the Recused Judge shall commit the Class 3 Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported Judge, by the Clerk of the Courts, and shall furthermore be ineligible to Judge any future CFJ\'s until such time as e requests to be made eligible again by publicly posting such a request. an announcement to that effect.
\n
\nSeven daysA Judge who Judges or Dismisses a CFJ after the end of the Deliberation Period, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ and but before being recused as a Judge, commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this Rule. a Bit Late, to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nIf theA Judge returned who has neither Judged nor Dismissed a Judgement or Dismisses that CFJ seven days after the end of the its Deliberation Period but before being Recused as Judge, then e shall commit the Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, is automatically recused from that CFJ.
\n
\nA Judge who is recused from a CFJ in accordance with this Rule commits the Class 0.2 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge (to be detected and Reported reported by the Clerk of the Courts. Courts), and becomes ineligible to be a Judge until e publicly requests to be made eligible again.
\n'),(36563,215,495178,495179,'TheFor each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period for a CFJ begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge, eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and ends lasts seven days later. days.
\n
\nIn the week following the end of the Deliberation Period, if theA Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed the CFJ, then who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge from the CFJ and assign it to a new Judge, by posting an announcement to that effect. Courts.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges or DismissesDuring a CFJ after Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the end CFJ, then the Clerk of the Deliberation Period, but before being recused as a Judge, commits Courts may recuse the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be detected and reported Judge by announcing that e does so. At the Clerk end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the Courts. CFJ, then e is automatically recused.
\n
\n Judge who has neither Judged nor Dismissed a CFJ seven days after the end of its Deliberation Period is automatically recused from that CFJ.
\n
\nA Judge who is recused from a CFJ in accordance with according to this Rule commits the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge (to Judge, to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts), and Courts. E becomes ineligible to be a Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to be made become eligible again. again, whichever is soonest.
\n'),(36564,215,495179,495180,'For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nDuring a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically recused.
\n
\n the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge, Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. E The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is soonest. sooner.
\n'),(36565,215,495180,495181,'For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\n recuse the Judge em by announcing that e does so. At announcement.
\n
\nUpon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically recused. the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by announcement as soon as possible.
\n
\nA Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.
\n'),(36566,215,495181,495182,'For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nDuring a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement.
\n
\nUpon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by announcement as soon as possible.
\n
\nA Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.
\n'),(36567,215,495182,495166,'For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins whenAfter the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days.
\n
\nDuring a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged distributed the CFJ, then Statement to be judged and the Clerk identity of the Courts may recuse em by announcement.
\n
\nUpon Judge, the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e Judge has not yet Judged one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the CFJ, then Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge is selected. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by announcement Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible.
\n'),(36568,215,495166,495172,'After the ClerkThe Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within seven days of the Courts has distributed the Statement when e was assigned to Judge it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be judged eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the identity Infraction of the Judge, the Failing to Judge has one week in which to deliver be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a legal Judgement. If penalty of three Blots.
\n
\nHowever, if the Judge fails Player assigned to deliver Judge a Judgement within this CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is penalized 10 points and neither required nor permitted to either return a new Judge is selected. A Judgement is delivered by submitting on, or dismiss, that Judgement CFJ, and ceases to be the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement Judge assigned to all Players as soon as possible. that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36569,215,495172,495183,'The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots.
\n
\nHowever, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36570,216,495185,495188,' legal judgement Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The judgement may The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but such are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid.
\n
\nSuch reasons and arguments form no part of the judgement Judgement itself. If a judgement is accompanied by reasons and arguments, However, the Clerk of the Speaker Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the judgement. Judgement.
\n
\nAny evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(36571,216,495188,495189,' FALSE, UNDECIDABLE, or UNDECIDED. The UNKNOWN. The Judgement of UNDECIDABLE is reserved for those statements which are logically neither TRUE nor FALSE. The Judgement of UNKNOWN is for those statements for which the Judge is unable to obtain information necessary to determine whether the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE.
\n
\nThe Judge must make a reasonable effort to obtain all information necessary to determine whether the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE.
\n
\nThe Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid.
\n
\nSuch reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement.
\n
\nAny evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(36572,216,495189,495190,'A legal Judge returns a Judgement is by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDABLE, TRUE or UNKNOWN. The Judgement FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of UNDECIDABLE is reserved the permitted time for those statements which are logically neither TRUE nor FALSE. The deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of UNKNOWN is for those statements for which the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is unable to obtain information necessary to determine whether not legal and shall not be accepted by the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE. Clerk.
\n
\nThe Judge must makeA CFJ has been Judged when a reasonable effort to obtain all information necessary to determine whether legal Judgement has been received by the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE. Clerk.
\n
\nThe Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citationsAs soon as possible after the receipt of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid. to the Public Forum.
\n
\nSuch reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement.
\n
\nAny evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If theA Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of the Courts. 3 Points.
\n'),(36573,216,495190,495191,'A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk.
\n
\nA CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.
\n
\n 3 Points. Mils.
\n'),(36574,216,495191,495192,'A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk.
\n
\nA CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.
\n
\n 3 Mils. Mil.
\n'),(36575,216,495192,495194,''),(36576,216,495194,495195,'A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk.
\n
\nA CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.
\n
\n of 3 Mil. 1 VT.
\n'),(36577,216,495195,495197,''),(36578,216,495197,495198,' Judge returns judges a Judgement CFJ by sending it eir Judgment to the Clerk of the Courts. A The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to FALSE. Only the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible Judge assigned to be a CFJ may Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk.
\n
\nA CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. CFJ.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.
\n
\n CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT.
\n'),(36579,216,495198,495199,' eir Judgment Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.
\n
\n of 1 VT. 20 Stems
\n'),(36580,216,495199,495200,'A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.
\n
\nAIf a Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall receive a pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of 20 Stems eir Judgement.
\n'),(36581,216,495200,495201,'A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.
\n
\n shall distribute publish the Judgement to the Public Forum. Judgement.
\n
\nIf a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement.
\n'),(36582,216,495201,495202,'AThe Judge judges of a CFJ Judges it by sending submitting eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ. "Decision", "Finding", and "Response" are unambiguous synonyms for "Judgement".
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt ofFor a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall publish Trial Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the Judgement. following: TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.
\n
\nIf a Judge delivers Judgement onAs soon as possible after receiving a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to publish it, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement.
\n'),(36583,216,495202,495203,'The Judge judge of a CFJ Judges judges it by submitting publishing eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. "Decision", "Finding", and "Response" are unambiguous synonyms for "Judgement". judgement, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers relevant.
\n
\n a Trial Judge, trial judge, a Judgement judgement is exactly one of the following: TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with the Judgement. DISMISSED.
\n'),(36584,216,495203,495204,'The judgeThere is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a CFJ judges it particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by publishing eir judgement, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers relevant. person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nFor a trial judge, a judgementThe initiator is exactly 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 following: case.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* UNDETERMINED, appropriate 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 DISMISSED. apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose
\n
\nThe judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide future play, including future judgements, but does not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n'),(36585,216,495204,495205,'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 person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n logically undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n 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
\n
\nThe judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide future play, including future judgements, but does not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n'),(36586,216,495205,495206,'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 person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n inquiry case case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play, including play (including future judgements, judgements), but does do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n'),(36587,216,495206,495207,' any first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(36588,216,495207,495208,' inquired into. into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(36589,216,495208,495209,' is yes.) yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(36590,216,495209,495210,'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. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n The rulekeepor Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n'),(36591,216,495210,495186,'ThereA legal Judgement 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 either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement may be initiated by any first-class person, accompanied by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, reasons and for arguments, but such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, reasons and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge arguments form no part of the case.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has Judgement itself. If a judicial question on veracity, which Judgement is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually accompanied by reasons and logically true at arguments, the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which Clerk of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply Courts must distribute the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose
\n
\nThe judgement of the question in an inquiry case, reasons and arguments along with 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. Judgement.
\n'),(36592,216,495186,495187,' UNDECIDED. The The Judgement may must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but such are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid.
\n
\nSuch reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. If a Judgement is accompanied by reasons and arguments, However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement.
\n'),(36593,216,495187,495193,'A legal Judge returns a Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be accompanied by reasons either TRUE or FALSE, and arguments, which include, but are must be delivered to the Clerk not necessarily limited to, citations later than the end of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is completely invalid. not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk.
\n
\nSuch reasons and arguments form no part of theA CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement itself. However, has been received by the Clerk Clerk.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Courts must Clerk shall distribute the reasons and arguments along with Judgement to the Judgement. Public Forum.
\n
\nA Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mil.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36594,216,495193,495196,'A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk.
\n
\nA CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.
\n
\n of 3 Mil. 1 VT.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36595,217,495212,495213,'All judgements Judgements must be in accordance with the rules; Rules; however, if the rules Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement Statement to be judged, Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom and Game Custom, the spirit Spirit of the game Game and past Judgements before applying other standards.
\n'),(36596,217,495213,495215,' consider Game Custom, game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the Spirit best interests of the Game and past Judgements game before applying other standards.
\n'),(36597,217,495215,404547,''),(36598,217,404547,405609,' custom, commonsense, common sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards.
\n'),(36599,217,405609,405711,'All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards.
\n
\nWhen a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued.
\n'),(36600,217,405711,406095,'All Judgements must be in accordance withWhen interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the Rules; however, if rules takes precedence. Where the Rules are text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement unclear, it is to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider augmented by game custom, common sense, past Judgements, judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game before applying other standards. game.
\n
\nWhen a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued.need
\n'),(36601,217,406095,495214,'When interpreting and applying the rules, the text ofAll Judgements must be in accordance with the rules takes precedence. Where Rules; however, if the text is Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is unclear on the Statement to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom, the best interests Spirit of the game. Game and past Judgements before applying other standards.
\n
\nneedThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36602,218,495220,495221,' the rules, Rules, the Industrious Speaker shall have the following duties: -register new players Players -maintain a list of all players Players and their current scores, and make such a list available to all players Players -maintain a complete list of the current rules, Rules, and make such a list available to all players Players -make a random determination whenever such determination is required by the rules. Rules and no other Player is specified to make the determination.
\n'),(36603,218,495221,495222,'In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the Rules, the IndustriousThe Speaker shall have the following duties: -register new Players -maintain a list of all Players and their current scores, and make such a list available to all Players -maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and make such a list available to all Players -make a random determination whenever such determination is determinations required by the Rules and no other Player is specified except when the Rules specify another party to make the determination.
\n'),(36604,305,495225,495226,' 0 points. points, except that new Voters who enter part-way through a game in progress shall be given the average of all current Voters scores. Points may not be gained, lost, or traded except as explicitly stated in the Rules.
\n'),(36605,308,495227,495228,'VotersWhen the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is finished, the Player who voted AGAINST Proposals which are adopted receive 10 points apiece. Players whose Proposals are adopted proposed the Proposal shall receive a random F-A points, where F is the number of points in Votes cast FOR the range 1-10 inclusive. Players whose Proposals are not adopted shall lose 10 points. Proposal and A is the number of Votes cast AGAINST it.
\n'),(36606,308,495228,495229,' AGAINST it. it; all Players who vote AGAINST a Proposal which passes shall receive 2(F-A) points.
\n'),(36607,312,495230,495231,' a Voter Player votes, he e gets one (1) point at the end of the Voting Period.
\n'),(36608,312,495231,495232,'IfFor each Proposal, and for each Player, if that Player casts a legal Vote on that Proposal, then that Player votes, e gets shall receive one (1) point Point at the end of the Voting Period. Period of that Proposal.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall detect and report these Point transfers, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal for which the Player\'s Vote was cast.
\n'),(36609,312,495232,495233,' one Point Mil at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\n these Point Mark transfers, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal for which the Player\'s Vote was cast.
\n'),(36610,326,495236,495239,'Proposals submitted after the passage of this rule (# 326) which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing penalizing, or otherwise changing points to Players the account of any Nomic Entity\'s holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are disallowed. shall not take effect even if adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(36611,326,495239,495241,''),(36612,326,495241,495237,' Proposal are invalid, shall not take effect even if adopted, any Rule be deemed to the contrary notwithstanding. have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon.
\n'),(36613,326,495237,495238,' Voted upon. upon. (*Was: 326*)
\n'),(36614,326,495238,495240,' Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed take effect even if adopted, any Rule to have been properly submitted, and shall the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not be Voted upon. (*Was: 326*) contain this sentence.
\n'),(36615,355,495246,495247,' effect. However, Similarly, if a Player believes that any Player has commited a Crime, e may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. Either kind of Statement is known as an Accusation. A Criminal Court is defined as the Judge of an Accusation. However, -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points. -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the adoption of this Rule or more than 30 days before the Accusation. -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the same committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been judged UNDECIDED. -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may act as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would occur, a random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be Judge. If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been convicted found Guilty of breaking the Rule. Rule or committing the Crime, as applicable. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused Player has been acquitted found Not Guilty of breaking the Rule. Rule or committing the Crime, as applicable.
\n'),(36616,355,495247,495248,' as applicable. applicable. (*Was: 355*)
\n'),(36617,357,495250,495251,'When a Voter refers to the Nomic Speaker, or any other Speaker, that Voter must use one of the following adjectives in conjuction with the Speaker:
\n
\nAdmirable, Amazing, August, Astonishing, Astounding, Beloved, Benevolent, Brilliant, Celebrated, Circumcised, Circumspect, Cogetative, Competant, Consummate, Courteous, Deserving, Devoted, Diligent, Distinguished, Divine, Effulgent, Elevated, Eminent, Excellent, Exceptional, Extraordinary, Exalted, Fabulous, Famed, Fine, Foremost, Generous, Glorious, Gracious, Grand, Great, Hallowed, High, Holy, Honored, Illustrious, Impartial, Impressive, Incredible, Industrious, Influential, Judicious, Just, Kind, Kosher, Kindred, Lofty, Magnificent, Majestic, Magnanimous, Marvelous, Mighty, Neat, Noble, Omnilaborant, Outstanding, Overworked, Persuasive, Pensive, Phenominal, Pious, Prime, Qualified, Quintessential, Regal, Reknown, Remarkable, Respected, Revered, Solicitous, Spectacular, Splendid, Superb, Superior, Transcendant, Trustful, Unparalleled, Upright, Unusual, Venerated, Vigilent, Virile, Virtuous, Watchful, Wonderful, Worshipped, Xenophilic, Zealous, or any combination of the preceeding.
\n
\nAny Voter not following this directive shall lose 1 point per reference to the Great and Virtuous Speaker which does not use one of the above words.
\n'),(36618,358,495252,495253,'No proposal is allowed to contain any word which begins with the letter indicated in the Title of this proposal, being the second to the last letter of the English alphabet. If a Proposal does contain a word beginning with the aforementioned letter, the Voter who proposed that Proposal shall lose 1 point per instance of a word beginning with said letter. This is not dependant upon the passage of the offending Proposal into a Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule shall be repealed when Proposal 357 is Amended to include a word beginning with said Evil letter. If Proposal 357 is not accepted as a Rule, then this Rule shall remain in effect until Repealed.
\n'),(36619,362,495254,495255,' points nor blots for the terminology or grammar used in those quotes. For example, if a Player were to quote Rule 203 in its entirety, that Player would not lose points for not referring to our Benevolent Speaker properly withing this quote. This This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar. grammar. (*Was: 362*)
\n'),(36620,362,495255,495256,' in points nor blots any way for the terminology or grammar used in those quotes. This
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, a gain or loss of Kudos by any means shall not be construed as a punishment.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar. (*Was: 362*) grammar.
\n'),(36621,366,495258,495262,' may put self on hold for choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the purposes of Nomic game play. A Public Forum. A Player who is on hold may not participate in the Game in place any way. Specifically: other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold.
\n
\n* Cannot Vote * Cannot send any message to the list, exceptWhile On Hold, a request to revert to active status. * Cannot send any private message to any Player which concerns the game. * Does may not gain Vote, propose Proposals, or lose points. * Is absolved of all normal duties, such as serving as a Judge.
\n
\nPutting oneself on hold is intended for Players who cannot participate campaign for some time, because of vacation, temporary loss of email, or whatever. Its use is completely optional, but since penalties could acrue from inability to respond to judgeship duties, it is a good idea.
\n
\nA Player puts self on hold by writing a message to the list, stating, "Put me on hold", or something to that effect. This message must also include a reasonable excuse; this Office. E is left to Judgement at this time to decide.
\n
\nA Player puts self back on active status by writing a mesage to the list, stating, "Put me on active status", or something similar. A request to return to active status must also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be at least 4 days later than the request to go on hold. (This is intended to prevent such hold periods from being too frequent.)
\n
\nThe Benevolent Speaker takes note required of these hold and active status messages and marks the Player\'s status accordingly.
\n
\nIf eim, including appointment as a Player makes excessive use of hold status, the Player may lose the privilege. Again, this is left to Judgement to define what is excessive. Judge (*Was: 464/870*)
\n'),(36622,366,495262,495263,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold.
\n
\n Judge
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*)
\n'),(36623,366,495263,495264,' On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold.
\n
\nWhile On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*)
\n'),(36624,366,495264,495265,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold.
\n
\n of eim, em, including appointment as a Judge
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*)
\n'),(36625,366,495265,495266,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold.
\n
\n a Judge Judge.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*)
\n'),(36626,366,495266,495267,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold.
\n
\nWhile On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of em, including appointment as a Judge.
\n
\n of players. (*Was: 464/870*) players.
\n'),(36627,366,495267,495268,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not placeAt any other Player besides emself on Hold. A time, each Player may cease to shall either be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On or Off Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is This status shall not On Hold. be changed except as specified in the Rules.
\n
\nWhile On Hold,When a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E registers (or reregisters), e is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of em, including appointment as a Judge. Off Hold.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties toAn Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e posts a particular player or message to the Public Forum stating that e wishes to be On Hold.
\n
\nAn On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e posts a particular group of players. message to the Public Forum stating that e wishes to be Off Hold, provided that e has been On Hold for at least 96 hours.
\n'),(36628,366,495268,495269,'At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules.
\n
\nWhen a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.
\n
\n e posts a message Moves to the Public Forum stating that e wishes to be On Hold. Stasis Chamber.
\n
\n e posts a message to Moves from the Public Forum stating that e wishes to be Off Hold, provided that e has been On Hold for Stasis Chamber. E may not do so until at least 96 hours. hours after e last went On Hold.
\n'),(36629,366,495269,495270,'At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules.
\n
\nWhen a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.
\n
\nAn Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e Moves to the Stasis Chamber.
\n
\nAn On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e Moves from the Stasis Chamber. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last went On Hold.
\n
\n"Active" and "Inactive" are unambiguous synonyms for "Off Hold" and "On Hold", respectively.
\n'),(36630,366,495270,495271,'At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules.
\n
\nWhen a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.
\n
\n e Moves to announces in the Stasis Chamber. Public Forum that e goes On Hold.
\n
\n e Moves from announces in the Stasis Chamber. Public Forum that e comes Off Hold. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last went On Hold.
\n
\n"Active" and "Inactive" are unambiguous synonyms for "Off Hold" and "On Hold", respectively.
\n'),(36631,366,495271,495272,'At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shallEach player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be changed modified except as specified by methods described explicitly in the Rules. rules.
\n
\nWhenThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold. player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e announces in the Public Forum that e goes On Hold. activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nAn On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e announces in the Public Forum thatWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e comes Off Hold. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last went On Hold. becomes active.
\n
\n"Active"A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and "Inactive" indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "Off Hold" "active" and "On Hold", respectively. "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly active players may vote, make proposals, or hold office. Inactive players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. Frozen players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action.
\n'),(36632,366,495272,495273,'Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.
\n
\nA player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly an active players player may vote, make proposals, or hold office. Inactive players office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. Frozen players A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action. action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering.
\n'),(36633,366,495273,495274,'Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.
\n
\nA player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering.
\n
\nNot being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(36634,366,495274,495275,'Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.
\n
\nA player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\n or action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering. action.
\n
\nNot being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(36635,366,495275,495276,'Each(a) Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, either active or inactive. "Off hold" and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules. "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that(b) Whenever a player may have because of eir activity level. registers or reregisters, e is active.
\n
\nAn(c) A player may change eir activity level of active is higher than any other by announcing that e does so, provided that a week has passed since e last changed eir activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen. level.
\n
\nWhenever(d) Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player registers may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or reregisters, e becomes active. action.
\n
\nA player may lower eir(e) This rule takes precedence over each other rule that regulates activity level by announcing that e does so levels and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit powers or duties that a player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating have because of eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action.
\n
\nNot being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition. level.
\n'),(36636,366,495276,495277,'(a) Each player has an activity level, whichActivity is either a stuck player switch with values active or inactive. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. inactive.
\n
\n(b) Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e is active."Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively.
\n
\n(c) AA player may change flip eir activity level by announcing that activity, unless e does so, provided that a week has passed since e last changed eir activity level. done so within the past week.
\n
\n(d) InactiveInactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action.
\n
\n(e) ThisThis rule takes precedence over each all other rule rules that regulates activity levels and regulate activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level. activity.
\n'),(36637,366,495277,495278,'Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and inactive.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively.
\n
\nA player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the past week.
\n
\nA player may, with Support and without 2 Objections, flip the activity of another player to inactive, if that other player has not made a public post in the last 30 days. A player made inactive by this method becomes active immediately upon eir next public post.
\n
\nInactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity.
\n'),(36638,366,495278,495259,'Activity isA Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. If a stuck player switch with values active and inactive. Player wishes to cease being On Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively.
\n
\nA playerWhile On Hold, a Player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within not communicate with any other Player in any way regarding the past week.
\n
\nA player may, Game, with Support and without 2 Objections, flip the activity exception of another player to inactive, if that other player has not made a public post in notifying the last 30 days. A player made inactive by this method becomes active immediately upon eir next public post.
\n
\nInactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a judge Speaker of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules desire to perform any duty or action, unless stop being On Hold. This prohibits the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate activity, Player from Voting, proposing Proposals, campaigning, or discussing the powers or Game whatsoever with another Player. The Player is also absolved of any duties that which would require said participation, including appointment as a player may have because of eir activity. Judge.
\n'),(36639,366,495259,495260,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours.
\n
\n not communicate with any other Player in any way regarding the Game, with the exception of notifying the Speaker of the desire to stop being On Hold. This prohibits the Player from Voting, proposing Vote, propose Proposals, campaigning, or discussing the Game whatsoever with another Player. The Player campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would require said participation, otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge. Judge
\n'),(36640,366,495260,495261,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours.
\n
\n a Judge Judge (*Was: 464*)
\n'),(36641,366,495261,495279,'A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours.
\n
\nWhile On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge (*Was: 464*)
\n'),(36642,374,495280,495281,'PlayersA Player may trade voluntarily transfer points to any other Players, Player for the purpose of "buying" Votes, Proposals, Judgements, or any other Commodity explicitly outlined by future rules, purpose, within the following limits: (a) the trade being made transfer must be posted to the listserv (b) a Player may only trade transfer a positive number of points (c) a Player may not trade transfer more points than e currently has Commodities (d) a Player may not explicitly declared transfer points if the recipient would as such via legislation (eg "future considerations" at a result have more than 90% of the time points required to win.
\n
\nIf any agreement among Players includes any transfer of points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Proposal) may Rule shall not be bought construed as having any bearing on the legality or sold. legal enforeceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer.
\n'),(36643,377,495282,495283,'NoAny Player who may make a Proposal may have more than three up to four Proposals up for vote at any given time.
\n'),(36644,377,495283,495284,'Any Player who may makeThere shall be no limit on the number of Proposals a Proposal Player may have up to four Proposals up for vote at any given time.
\n'),(36645,384,495286,495290,'At any time in the week followingA Judgement may be Appealed upon the posting insistence of a Judgement, any Player who believes that Judgement three Players to be in error may Appeal that Judgement. "In error" includes, but is not limited to, being in violation of the Rules. Once a judgement has been Appealed, it may not be Appealed again. Public Forum.
\n
\nWhenIf a Judgement is successfully Appealed, an Appeal Court is set up. An Appeal Court shall consist of an odd number of Justices greater than one. Unless another Rule specifies otherwise, that number shall be three. The the Justices shall be selected in the same manner that the Rules provide for selecting Judges, with each Judge the following restrictions: 1) no Player Statement as if they were Judges. They may be selected more than once for any particular Appeal Court. 2) confer with each other on the Player who made case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the Appeal allotted time, e shall not be selected fined three Points for that Appeal Court. 3) The Player who made the original Call For judgement each day by which is being Appealed e missed the deadline. This fine shall not be selected for that Appeal Court. levied by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\nAfterIf a Justice has accepted appointment, he has one week in which to return a Decision. If majority of the Justice does not return a Decision in that time, he shall be penalized 10 points and another Player Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be chosen considered to take his place as Justice, unless a Verdict has have been reached on that Appeal, in which case there Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be no replacement considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices\' reasoning and he arguments shall not be penalized. recorded with the original CFJ.
\n
\nA Decision must be one ofOnce a Judgement has been made, the following: (1) TO OVERRULE JUDGEMENT, (2) TO SUSTAIN JUDGEMENT, or (3) UNDECIDED. A Decision Justices may make Injunctions just as may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but any such reasons and arguements form no part Judges, provided a majority of the official Decision itself. them agree.
\n
\nA Verdict is reached based on the Decisions of the Justices. If a majorityThe decision of the Justices return the Decision TO OVERRULE JUDGEMENT, then the Verdict is JUDGEMENT OVERRULED. Otherwise the Verdict is JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED. If enough Decisions have been returned to ensure one final; no further Appeal of these two Verdicts, then the Verdict is reached immediately; it does not wait for the remaining Justices to return a Decision. that Statement may be made.
\n
\n the Verdict is JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED, then the Judgement in question stands, and the Player who Appealed the Judgement is penalized 10 points.
\n
\nIf the Verdict is JUDGEMENT OVERRULED, then the Judgement in question is changed to UNDECIDED.
\n
\nAt any time in the week following the return decision of a Verdict, any Player may submit a Proposal that the Verdict be Reversed, i.e. JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED changed to JUDGEMENT OVERRULED or vice versa. In order to pass, such a Proposal must receive 2/3 original Judge of the Votes legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period; this Rule takes precedence over Rule 209. If the Proposal passes, the Verdict Statement is Reversed and points are adjusted as if changed by the new Verdict had been Justices, the original Verdict. Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging. (*Was: 690*)
\n'),(36646,384,495290,495291,'AIf within two weeks after a Judgement may be Appealed upon is distributed to the insistence of any Public Forum, three Players players post to the Public Forum. Forum their insistence that it be appealed, then the judgement is Appealed.
\n
\n a Judgement judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on Clerk of the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail Courts shall within one week report this to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed Public Forum, together with the deadline. This fine shall be levied by statement of the Scorekeepor. CFJ.
\n
\nIf a majority ofWhen this happens, the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices\' reasoning Speaker, CotC, and arguments Justiciar shall be recorded serve as Justices, judging the statement as if they were Judges. The Justices may confer with each other on the original CFJ. case before delivering Judgement if they desire.
\n
\nOnce a Judgement has been made, the JusticesA Justice may make Injunctions just appoint another willing Player to act as may Judges, provided a majority Justice; the player so appointed becomes Justice in eir place. A Justice who was ineligible to serve as Judge of the CFJ, or who was Judge of them agree. the CFJ, may not deliver judgement as Justice, but must instead so appoint another player, as soon as possible.
\n
\nThe decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that StatementNo Player may be made. deliver judgement more than once on the same CFJ; rather than do so as Justice e must instead appoint another player to act as Justice, as soon as possible.
\n
\nIf the decision of the original Judge of the Statement a Justice, A, is changed required by the Rules to appoint another Player as Justice, he may do so by declaring to the Justices, CotC that e is unable to find another willing player to so serve; in this case the Judge CotC shall forfeit as soon as possible select an eligible player at random to serve as Justice in place of A.
\n
\nThe Justices shall receive the same compensation e received as Judges for judging. (*Was: 690*) each Statement so Judged.
\n'),(36647,384,495291,495292,'If within two weeks after a JudgementWhenever an Appeal is distributed initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be constituted to consider the Public Forum, three players post Appeal and to the Public Forum their insistence that it be appealed, then the judgement is Appealed. reach a determination.
\n
\nIf a judgement is Appealed,A Board of Appeals shall consist of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts shall select the Justices for each Board of Appeals as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected. First, the Speaker shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Justiciar shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Clerk of the Courts shall within one week report this to be selected, if eligible. All remaining positions on the Board (if any) shall then be filled by the Public Forum, together with random selection of the statement Clerk of the CFJ. Courts from amongst all those Players eligible to be selected, as described below.
\n
\nWhen this happens, the Speaker, CotC, and Justiciar shallA Player who has already been selected to serve as Justices, judging the statement as if they were Judges. The Justices may confer with each other on a given Board of Appeal is not eligible to be selected a second time for that Board; this does not in any way affect that Player\'s eligibility to serve in the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. first position, however.
\n
\nA Justice may appoint another willingIf a Board of Appeals is considering a question pertaining to a CFJ, then a Player shall only be eligible to act as Justice; the player so appointed becomes Justice in eir place. A Justice who was ineligible be selected to serve on that Board of Appeals if e is eligible to be selected as a Judge of the CFJ, or that CFJ. However, if this restriction would result in there being fewer than three Players who was Judge are eligible to serve on that Board of the CFJ, may Appeals, it shall not deliver judgement as Justice, but must instead so appoint another player, as soon as possible. have any effect for that Board.
\n
\nNo Player may deliver judgement more than once on the same CFJ; rather than do so as Justice e must instead appoint another player to act as Justice, as soon as possible.
\n
\nIfIf a Justice, A, Board of Appeals is required by the Rules to appoint another Player as Justice, he may do so by declaring to the CotC considering a question that e is unable does not pertain to find another willing player any one CFJ, then all Active Players (except those already selected) shall be eligible to so serve; in be selected for that Board. If this case the CotC shall as soon as possible select an would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible player at random to serve as Justice in place on that Board of A.
\n
\nThe Justices Appeals, then all Players, whether or not active, shall receive the same compensation as Judges for each Statement so Judged. be eligible.
\n'),(36648,384,495292,495293,'Whenever an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be constituted to consider the Appeal and to reach a determination.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals shall consist of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts shall select the Justices for each Board of Appeals as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected. First, the Speaker shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Justiciar shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Clerk of the Courts shall be selected, if eligible. All remaining positions on the Board (if any) shall then be filled by the random selection of the Clerk of the Courts from amongst all those Players eligible to be selected, as described below.
\n
\nA Player who has already been selected to serve on a given Board of Appeal is not eligible to be selected a second time for that Board; this does not in any way affect that Player\'s eligibility to serve in the first position, however.
\n
\n e was not a Judge of that CFJ, and is eligible to be selected as a Judge of that CFJ. However, if this restriction would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, it shall not have any effect for that Board.
\n
\nIf a Board of Appeals is considering a question that does not pertain to any one CFJ, then all Active Players (except those already selected) shall be eligible to be selected for that Board. If this would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, then all Players, whether or not active, shall be eligible.
\n'),(36649,384,495293,495294,'WheneverWhen an Appeal appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be constituted to consider the Appeal and selected in order to reach a determination. decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal.
\n
\n Appeals shall consist consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts shall select selects the Justices for each Board of Appeals Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected. First, the selected; The Speaker shall be is selected, if eligible. Then, the eligible; The Justiciar shall be is selected, if eligible. Then, the Clerk of the Courts shall be eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible. All eligible; Any remaining positions on the Board (if any) shall are then be filled by the random selection of the Clerk of selection, by the Courts CotC, from amongst all those Players remaining eligible to be selected, as described below. Players.
\n
\n Player who has already been selected to serve on a given Board of Appeal is not eligible to be selected a second time ineligible for that Board; this does not in selection if any way affect that Player\'s eligibility to serve in of the first position, however. following is true:
\n
\nIf a Board of Appeals is considering a question pertaining to a CFJ, then a Player shall only be eligible to bei) E has already been selected to serve on that Board of Appeals if e was not a Judge of Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that CFJ, and Board. iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is eligible to be selected as a consider. iv) E was ineligible to Judge of the CFJ that CFJ. However, if resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction would result in there being fewer than does not prevent three Players who are eligible to serve Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on that Board of Appeals, it shall Hold, and this restriction does not have any effect prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for that the Board.
\n
\nIf a Board of AppealsA Justice is considering a question that does not pertain permitted to any one CFJ, then all Active Players (except those already selected) shall be appoint another eligible Player to be selected for that Board. If this would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible to serve replace eim as Justice on that Board a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of Appeals, then all Players, whether or not active, shall be eligible. the appointment.
\n'),(36650,384,495294,495295,'When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected to serve on that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider. iv) E was ineligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board.
\n
\n replace eim em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment.
\n'),(36651,384,495295,495296,'When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n was ineligible not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, consideration when it was called, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board.
\n
\nA Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment.
\n'),(36652,384,495296,495297,'When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n E was is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration when it was called, consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board.
\n
\nA Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment.
\n'),(36653,384,495297,495298,'When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n the Board. Board. vi) E is frozen.
\n
\nA Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment.
\n'),(36654,384,495298,495299,' an appeal Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by subject of the appeal. Appeal.
\n
\n three distinct Players, called Justices. The Appelate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts selects correctly announces the Justices for each Board, identity of all Appelate Judges, determined as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The follows:
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible; eligible. b) The Justiciar Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible; eligible. c) The CotC Justiciar is selected, if eligible; eligible. d) Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, selection by the CotC, Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n selected to serve on for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge in of the matter subject of the Board is to consider. Appeal. iv) E is not eligible ineligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for at the Board. time of selection. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three Active.
\n
\nAn Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Players from being selected Player as eir replacement by informing the CotC for Clerk of the Board. vi) E Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is frozen. recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nA JusticeThe last Appelate Judge selected is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying Lead Judge for that Board. If the Clerk of the Courts of Lead Judge is replaced, then the appointment. replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n'),(36655,384,495299,495300,'When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\n by random selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. v) E is not Active.
\n
\nAn Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nThe last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n'),(36656,384,495300,495301,'When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\n three Appelate Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Appellate Judge.
\n
\n all Appelate Appellate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible. d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. v) E is not Active.
\n
\nAn Appelate Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\n an Appelate Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\n last Appelate Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n'),(36657,384,495301,495302,' Appeal.
\n
\nA A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible. d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n of selection. v) E is not Active. selection.
\n
\nAn Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nThe last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n'),(36658,384,495302,495303,'When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.
\n
\nAn Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\n shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nThe last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n'),(36659,384,495303,495304,'When an AppealThere is initiated, a Board subclass of Appeals shall be selected judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case\'s purpose is to reach a decision about determine the subject appropriateness of a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the Appeal. A Board judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this Rule rule is an Appellate Judge. used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment.
\n
\nA BoardAn appeal concerning any assignment of Appeals is selected when judgement in a non-appeal case within the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows: past two weeks, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support.
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The ClerkThe entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the Courts members is selected, if eligible. c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by qualified to be assigned as judge of the Clerk prior case and none of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players. members is the prior judge.
\n
\nA PlayerAn appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is ineligible for selection applicable if and only if any of the following prior question is true: applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition are:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. prior question
\n
\nAn Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the Clerk appropriateness of the Courts, provided prior judgement but the Player consents. judge believes that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appellate Judge* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is recused, serious doubt about the Clerk appropriateness of the Courts shall select an eligible Player to replace em. of the prior judgement
\n
\nThe last Appellate Judge selected is* OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the Lead Judge replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question
\n
\nInitiation 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 Board. If judgement:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the Lead Judge judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is replaced, then rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement becomes Lead Judge. judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n'),(36660,384,495304,495305,'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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n the of the prior judgement
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nInitiation 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nA 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.
\n'),(36661,384,495305,495306,'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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nInitiation 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n'),(36662,384,495306,495307,'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.
\n
\n two weeks, other than weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nInitiation 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n'),(36663,384,495307,495308,'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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n on disposition are: disposition, and their effects, are as follows:
\n
\n prior question question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n new opportunity opportunity; the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n prior judgement judgement; the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n prior question; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nInitiation ofWhen an appeal case renders is initiated, the prior question suspended. It is suspended, and remains suspended as long as so until 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question judged.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n'),(36664,384,495308,495287,'There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case\'s purpose is to determineAt any time in the week following the appropriateness return of a judgement that has been assigned to Judgment on a Call for Judgment, any Player may submit a judicial question, and make remedy if Proposal that the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred Judgment on that statement be changed (from FALSE to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used TRUE; from TRUE to refer FALSE; from UNDECIDED to the circumstances either TRUE or FALSE). In order to pass, such a Proposal must receive 3/5 of the prior assignment. Votes legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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 isIf the prior judge.
\n
\nAn appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is applicable if and only if Proposal passes, the prior question Judgment is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition, changed accordingly and their effects, points are as follows:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* 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; the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* 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; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nWhen an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged.
\n
\nA 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 adjusted 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.
\n
\nIn the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion accordance with Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision. new Judgment.
\n'),(36665,384,495287,495288,'At any time in the week followingA Judgement may be Appealed upon the return insistence of a Judgment on a Call for Judgment, any Player may submit a Proposal that the Judgment on that statement be changed (from FALSE to TRUE; from TRUE to FALSE; from UNDECIDED three Players to either TRUE or FALSE). In order to pass, such a Proposal must receive 3/5 of the Votes legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period. Public Forum.
\n
\nIf a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Proposal passes, Justices shall each Judge the Judgment is changed accordingly and points are adjusted Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in accordance the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the new Judgment. original CFJ.
\n
\nOnce a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree.
\n
\nThe decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made.
\n
\nIf the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall return the compensation e received to the Point Reserve.
\n'),(36666,384,495288,495289,'A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum.
\n
\nIf a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ.
\n
\nOnce a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree.
\n
\nThe decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made.
\n
\n Point Reserve. Reserve. (*Was: 690*)
\n'),(36667,386,495310,495314,'An Incumbent Officer (or Official) is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A A Judge is not an Officer.
\n
\nAn Incumbent Official Officer may be replaced by another Player (the "Challenger") if that Player makes by a Proposal Directive to replace the Officer with him or herself, and install that Proposal passes. The action of making this Proposal constitutes "Running For Office." Player into the Office. The Proposal is treated normally, but requires at least containing such a 2/3 affirmative Vote Directive shall have an Adoption Index of all those Players casting legal Votes on that Proposal to pass. This Rule takes precedence over 209. at least 1.
\n
\n provided he or she e appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Challenger is running for his Office, the Officer may not appoint a successor, but instead the Challenger automatically becomes the new Officer. In such a case, the Vote for the appointment of the Challenger is rendered null and void. successor.
\n
\n an Office is vacant for any reason, Officer resigns while a Player Referendum is selected randomly for that Office in being voted upon to replace eim, the same way that Judges are selected. Player thus proposed will by eis Successor.
\n
\nAn Officer shall be appointed only if e consents.
\n
\nThis Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices.
\n'),(36668,386,495314,495315,'An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or ElectedOffices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically to an Office specified a position of authority or responsibility in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. Agora Nomic.
\n
\nAn Officer Office may be replaced created as specified by another Player by a Directive the Rules. A particular Office ceases to install exist when there is no Rule specifying that Player into the Office. The Proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1. Office.
\n
\n Officer may resign at is any time, provided e appoints Player who fills an Office as specified in the Rules. No Player shall fill an Office without eir consent. When according to the Rules a successor. Player fills an Office, any other Player previously filling that Office, if any, ceases to fill that Office.
\n
\nIfA Directive may be proposed to install a Player in an Officer resigns while Office. A proposal containing such a Referendum is being voted upon to replace eim, Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1. If the Directive takes effect, then the Player thus so proposed will by eis Successor.
\n
\nAn Officer shall be appointed only fills the Office, if e consents.
\n
\nThis Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices.
\n'),(36669,386,495315,495316,'Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic.
\n
\nAn Office may be created as specifiedOnly those Offices specifically established by the Rules. A particular If an Office ceases to exist when there is no Rule specifying that Office. be specified in the Rules, it ceases to exist.
\n
\n Rules. No No Player shall be required to fill an Office without eir giving consent. When according A Player indicates that e consents to fill an Office by posting to the Rules Public Forum that e does so. To be binding, such a Player fills an Office, any other Player previously filling post must be made not more than one week before, nor more than one week after, the time that Office, if any, ceases the Player is designated to fill that Office. the Office in question.
\n
\nA Directive may be proposedIt is forbidden for two or more Players to install a Player in an Office. A proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of hold the same Office at least 1. If the Directive takes effect, then same time. If the Rules require that a specific Player so proposed fills the fill an Office, if e consents.
\n
\nThis Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers any other Player who currently fills that Office ceases to Rules for specific Offices. do so simultaneously.
\n'),(36670,386,495316,495317,'Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic.
\n
\nOnly those OfficesAn Office exists only if it is specifically established by the Rules. If an Office ceases to be specified in the Rules, it ceases to exist.
\n
\nAn Officer is any Player who fills an Office as specified in the Rules. No Player shall be required to fill an Office without giving consent. A Player indicates that e consents to fill an Office by posting to the Public Forum that e does so. To be binding, such a post must be made not more than one week before, nor more than one week after, the time that the Player is designated to fill the Office in question.
\n
\nIt is forbidden for two or more Players to hold the same Office at the same time. If the Rules require that a specific Player fill an Office, any other Player who currently fills that Office ceases to do so simultaneously.
\n'),(36671,386,495317,495318,'Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically toAn Office is a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic. established by the Rules and held by a Player, who is called an Officer. At any time, for each Office there shall be exactly one Officer who holds it.
\n
\nAn Office existsA position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if the Rules specifically designate it as such. An Office only exists as long as there is specifically established by the Rules. a Rule in force which specifies that it exists. If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of an Office ceases to be specified in the Rules, it are changed such that they no longer do so, that Office ceases to exist.
\n
\nAn Officer is any Player who fills anA given Office as specified in the Rules. No Player shall be required to fill an Office without giving consent. A Player indicates has whatever duties, responsibilities, and privileges that e consents to fill an Office by posting to the Public Forum that e does so. To be binding, such a post must be made not more than one week before, nor more than one week after, the time that the Player is designated to fill the Office in question.
\n
\nIt is forbidden for two or more Players to hold the same Office at the same time. If the Rules require that a specific Player fill an Office, any other Player who currently fills that Office ceases assign to do so simultaneously. it.
\n'),(36672,386,495318,495319,' Officer. At
\n
\nAt any time, for each an Office there shall be is held by exactly one Officer who Player; if no other Rule directly or indirectly specifies which Player holds it. an Office, it shall be held by the Speaker.
\n
\nA position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if the Rules specifically designate it as such. An Office only exists as long as there is a Rule in force which specifies that it exists. If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of an Office are changed such that they no longer do so, that Office ceases to exist.
\n
\nA given Office has whatever duties, responsibilities, and privileges that the Rules assign to it.
\n'),(36673,386,495319,495320,' position of authority or responsibility established defined as such by the Rules and held by a Player, who is called an Officer. Rules.
\n
\n one Player; if Player (called an Officer). If no other Rule directly or indirectly specifies which Player holds an Office, it shall be held by the Speaker.
\n
\nA position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if the Rules specifically designate it as such. An Office only exists as long as there is a Rule in force which specifies that it exists. If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of an Office are changed such that they no longer do so, that Office ceases to exist.
\n
\nA given Office has whatever duties, responsibilities, and privileges that the Rules assign to it. Speaker.
\n'),(36674,386,495320,495321,' position defined as such so designated by the Rules.
\n
\nAt any time, anEach Office is always held by exactly one Player (called an Officer). If no other Rule directly or indirectly specifies which Player holds an Office, it Each Office shall be held by the Speaker. Speaker unless otherwise specified.
\n'),(36675,386,495321,495322,'An Office is a position so designatedThe Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Rules. Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nEach Office is always held by exactly one Player (calledThe holder of an Officer). Each Office shall office may be held referred to by the Speaker unless otherwise specified. name of the office.
\n'),(36676,386,495322,495323,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\n the office. office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to acheive Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain offical duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36677,386,495323,495324,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\n to acheive achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived. achieved.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\n certain offical official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36678,386,495324,495325,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\n The Herald Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved.
\n
\n information, than then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36679,386,495325,495326,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. acheived.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36680,386,495326,495327,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\n the office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36681,386,495327,495328,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\n the Director of Personnel IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived. achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36682,386,495328,495329,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\n duty, than then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36683,386,495329,495330,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active PlayerIf the holder duty of an office, thus removing any previous holder from office is to maintain certain information, then the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) officer shall publish that office has not changed hands with this method information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the previous 30 days, and (b) information or the potential officer consents to hold the office after receives a request for the announcement of intent is made. information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, then than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36684,386,495330,495331,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\n an Officer or the Speaker officer fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(36685,386,495331,495332,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an officer fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than directed at an office is not satisfied on time, or if the office is vacant, then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. held that office.
\n'),(36686,386,495332,495333,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf a Timing Order directed at an office is not satisfied on time, or if the office is vacant, then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e held that office.
\n'),(36687,386,495333,495334,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. NoA role is an office may be held if and only if it is so defined by more than one player. the rules. Each office that would otherwise not be held by at any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it time either is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n'),(36688,386,495334,495335,'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.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n'),(36689,386,495335,495336,'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.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n'),(36690,386,495336,495337,'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.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nThe holder of an office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination.
\n'),(36691,386,495337,495338,'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.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\n an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination.
\n'),(36692,386,495338,495311,'A roleAn Official is an office if and only if it is so defined by the rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) Player who has been Appointed or is filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of Elected to an office Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an officer, and Officer. An Officer may be referred to replaced by the name of the office.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described another Player, by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nThe holder of an elected office CAN a Proposal stating so, and that Proposal passes. An Officer may resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after at any time, provided e appoints a successor. If an elected office becomes (or Officer resigns while a Proposal is created) vacant, being voted upon to replace eim, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination Player proposed will by eis Successor. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination. specific Offices. Running for office
\n'),(36693,386,495311,495312,'An Official Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. An Officer may be replaced by another Player, by Player if a Proposal stating so, and to that Proposal effect passes. An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Proposal is being voted upon to replace eim, the Player proposed will by eis Successor. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. Running for office Offices.
\n'),(36694,386,495312,495313,' specific Offices. Offices. (*Was: 733*)
\n'),(36695,388,495339,495340,' not decide specify otherwise.
\n'),(36696,391,495343,495344,'Let there be a new unit of currency defined for each of the Groups of Rule 356. These units shall be named the X Coins, where the name of the Group associated with the unit is substitued for X.
\n
\nAny Player may possess zero or more of each of these currencies. No Player may possess less than zero of any of these currencies.
\n'),(36697,394,495347,495349,' is made that submitted which is wider than 80 characters or longer than 25 lines, its proposer the Proposer (i.e., the Player to propose that Proposal) shall be penalized 2 extra lose two Points. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, its proposer the Proposer shall receive one Point.
\n
\nWhenever a Proposal is submitted which contains text intended to become part of a Rule, if any part of that text contains more than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading whitespace which is common to all lines of that text), the Proposer shall be rewarded 1 extra Point. lose two Points.
\n'),(36698,394,495349,495350,' lose two Points. Whenever 2 Marks. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, the Proposer shall receive one Point. 1 Mark.
\n
\n lose two Points. 2 Marks.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall detect and report any transfer of Currency which takes place under the authority of this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e distributes the Proposals which caused such transfers.
\n'),(36699,394,495350,495351,'WheneverThe act of submitting a Proposal is submitted which is longer than 25 lines, the Proposer (i.e., the Player to propose that Proposal) shall lose 2 Marks. Whenever a Proposal passes that lines is no longer than 10 lines, an Infraction, the Proposer shall receive 1 Mark. penalty for which is 2 Marks.
\n
\nWheneverThe act of submitting a Proposal is submitted which contains containing text intended to become part of a Rule, if Rule such that any part of that text contains more than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading whitespace which is common to all lines of that text), text) is an Infraction, the Proposer shall lose penalty for which is 2 Marks.
\n
\n report any transfer of Currency which takes place under the authority of this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e distributes the Proposals which caused such transfers. these Infractions.
\n'),(36700,394,495351,495348,'The act of submittingWhenever a Proposal which is longer than 25 lines is an Infraction, the penalty for submitted which is 2 Marks.
\n
\nThe act of submitting a Proposal containing text intended to become part of a Rule such that any part of that text contains more than 72 70 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading whitespace which is common or longer than 25 lines, the Player to all lines of propose that Proposal shall lose two Points. Whenever a Proposal passes that text) is an Infraction, no longer than 10 lines, the penalty for which is 2 Marks.
\n
\nThe Promotor Player to propose that Proposal shall detect and report these Infractions. recieve one Point.
\n'),(36701,399,495352,495353,'Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.
\n
\n Set Format". (*Was: 399*) Format".
\n'),(36702,399,495353,495354,'Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.
\n
\nSo long as theThe Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not required to maintain or distribute the Rules. The Rulekeepor\'s salary shall be receive a weekly Salary of 5 points per week, if e is constrained by Rules defining the "Logical Rule Set Format". Points.
\n'),(36703,399,495354,495355,'Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.
\n
\n 5 Points. Mils.
\n'),(36704,399,495355,495356,'Let there be an Officer known asThere shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The The Rulekeepor shall maintain receive a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list weekly salary equal to all Players at least once a week. 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\n shall receive maintain a weekly Salary complete list of 5 Mils. the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.
\n'),(36705,399,495356,495358,' weekly salary Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\n of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at Rules. At least once a week. week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum.
\n'),(36706,399,495358,495360,'There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\n the Short Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. Forum. At least once a month, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36707,399,495360,495361,'There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Short Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. At least once a month, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36708,399,495361,495362,'There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\n Rules. At least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the The Short Logical Ruleset to constitutes the Public Forum. At least once a month, Rulekeepor\'s Official Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. Forum at least once each month.
\n'),(36709,399,495362,495363,' a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor\'s Official Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month.
\n'),(36710,399,495363,495364,'ThereThe Office of the Rulekeepor
\n
\nThere shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a Salary equal to 2 times as set in the Basic Officer Salary. last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor\'s Official Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month.
\n'),(36711,399,495364,495365,'The Office of the Rulekeepor
\n
\nThere shall existThere exists the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall Rulekeepor, whose responsibility it is to maintain a complete list of all Rules. The Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor\'s Official Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post Report includes the Full Short Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month. Ruleset.
\n'),(36712,399,495365,495366,' all Rules. The the Rules of Agora.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor\'s Report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. Eir Monthly Report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.
\n'),(36713,399,495366,495367,'There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility itThe Rulekeepor is to maintain a list an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the text of all the Rules rules of Agora.
\n
\n Rulekeepor\'s Weekly Report includes shall include the Short Logical Ruleset. Eir The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report includes shall include the Full Logical Ruleset.
\n'),(36714,399,495367,495368,'The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.
\n
\n Weekly Report shall include report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report shall include report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.
\n'),(36715,399,495368,495359,'The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for maintainingThere shall exist the text Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the rules of Agora. Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At least once a week, the Short Logical Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset. Ruleset to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36716,399,495359,495357,' weekly Salary salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\n of all Rules. At least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall current Rules, and post the Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThis Rule defers this list to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. Players at least once a week.
\n'),(36717,402,497232,497286,'The office of Speaker is held by the active player who has borne the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with The Speaker is the active 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. Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n
\n
\nThe Speaker is an imposed office, and the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign The Speaker is an imposed office.
\n
\nThe Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker\'s behalf.
\n
\n
\nThe ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\nWhenA foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the Ambassador informs a ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador. A foreign nomic of an event, may grant certain powers and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e SHALL use sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. to be the forum (if any) specified ambassador.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nRecognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by that the Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly, Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.
\n
\nWhen a foreign nomic for announcing 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.
\n
\nThe Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E SHALL inform that type nomic of event. the change as soon as possible.
\n'),(36718,402,497286,495369,'The office of Speaker is held by the active player who has borneThere shall be a position known as the Speaker-Elect. Only Voters may be Speaker-Elect; whenever a Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e shall cease to be Speaker-Elect. Only one Voter may be Speaker-Elect at any one time. A Voter may not become Speaker-Elect except as specified in the Patent Title Rules. The position of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with The Speaker Speaker-Elect is the active 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. Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title. not an Office.
\n
\nWhenever there is a Speaker-Elect:
\n
\n1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of his position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall become a Voter and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.
\n
\n(unattributed)If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.
\n
\n
\nThe Speaker is an imposed office, andIf another Rule specifies that the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign The Speaker is an imposed office.
\n
\nThe Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker is before the figurehead completion of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker\'s behalf.
\n
\n
\nThe ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\nA foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador. A foreign nomic may grant certain powers step 3, then this Rule defers to it, 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. to be the ambassador.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nRecognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly, Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s Recognition to any value (subject to the procedure above restriction). E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible. need not be completed.
\n'),(36719,402,495369,495370,'There shall be a position known as the Speaker-Elect. Only Voters may be Speaker-Elect; whenever a Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e shall cease to be Speaker-Elect. Only one Voter may be Speaker-Elect at any one time. A Voter may not become Speaker-Elect except as specified in the Rules. The position of Speaker-Elect is not an Office.
\n
\nWhenever there is a Speaker-Elect:
\n
\n of his eir position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall become a Voter and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.
\n
\nIf the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.
\n
\nIf another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion of step 3, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed.
\n'),(36720,402,495370,495371,'There shall be a position known asWhenever the Speaker-Elect. Only Voters may be Speaker-Elect; whenever a Rule specifies that Rules call for the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e shall cease to be Speaker-Elect. Only one Voter may be Speaker-Elect at any one time. A Voter may not become Speaker-Elect except as specified in the Rules. The position of Speaker-Elect is not an Office. Speaker:
\n
\nWhenever there is a Speaker-Elect:
\n
\n1)1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall become a Voter cease to be Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.
\n
\nIf the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.
\n
\n 3, such as the case when the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed. completed.
\n
\nHowever, in any case where the above procedure is not completed before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.)
\n'),(36721,402,495371,495373,''),(36722,402,495373,495374,'WheneverSpeaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for the Speaker-Elect a Speaker Transition to become Speaker: occur, and which proceeds as follows:
\n
\n1) The(i) when the Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for Transition commences, the performance of eir position, as soon as possible Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon em as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" result of the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker. being Speaker;
\n
\nIf(ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker-Elect changes before Speaker Transition commences, the Registrar shall post to the Public Forum a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the completion Transition and the Player who held the Office of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1. Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced;
\n
\nIf another Rule specifies(iii) provided that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion Notice of step 3, such as the case when the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed.
\n
\nHowever, Transition is correct in any case where its particulars, the above procedure is not completed before a transition posting of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is still obliged to make a reasonable effort Notice causes the Player identified in it to obtain all materials necessary for cease being the performance of eir duties from Speaker-Elect and to become the former Speaker. If this is not possible, then This concludes the new process of Speaker shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.) Transition.
\n'),(36723,402,495374,495375,'Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows:
\n
\n(i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker;
\n
\n the Registrar Payroll Clerk shall post to the Public Forum a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced;
\n
\n(iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition.
\n'),(36724,402,495375,495376,'Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows:
\n
\n(i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker;
\n
\n the Payroll Clerk Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall post to the Public Forum a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced;
\n
\n(iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition.
\n'),(36725,402,495376,404656,'Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows:
\n
\n(i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker;
\n
\n shall post to the Public Forum publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced;
\n
\n(iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36726,402,404656,405317,'Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows:
\n
\n(i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker;
\n
\n the Grand Warden Assistant Director of the Oligarchy Personnel shall publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced;
\n
\n(iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36727,402,405317,405394,''),(36728,402,405394,405517,'Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows:
\n
\n(i) when when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) as as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences, the Assistant Associate Director of Personnel shall publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced;
\n
\n(iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36729,402,405517,405536,'Speaker TransitionA cardinal is a process which commences at the time an active, ready player who is neither the Rules call for a current Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows: nor the Associate Director of Personnel.
\n
\n(i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em asWhile there is a result of pope, no other player may become a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e ceases being Speaker; a pope.
\n
\n(ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences,A notice of papal succession declares that a specified player is a pope. The notice is valid only if it is published by the Associate Director of Personnel shall publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced; specified player is indeed a pope.
\n
\n(iii) provided that the NoticeUpon publication of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting a valid notice of papal succession, the Notice causes the Player identified in it current Speaker ceases to cease being be Speaker, the Speaker-Elect and to become pope becomes the Speaker. This concludes new Speaker, and the process of Speaker Transition. pope ceases to be a pope.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36730,402,405536,405652,'A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.
\n
\nWhile there isWhen a cardinal becomes a pope, no other player may become any previous pope immediately ceases being a pope. Whenever Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e immediately ceases being a pope.
\n
\nA notice of papal succession declares thatFor seven days after a specified player is cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e becomes a pope. The notice is valid only if it is published by the Associate Director of Personnel and the specified Upon this announcement, that player is indeed becomes a pope. pope, so please treat em right good forever.
\n
\nUponA notice of papal succession is a notice published by the Associate Director of Personnel, that declares that a specified player is a pope, and is valid if the named player is indeed a pope. Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the new Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36731,402,405652,405677,'A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.
\n
\nFor seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever.
\n
\nWhen a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e immediately ceases being a pope.
\n
\nFor seven daysAs soon as possible after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e becomes a pope. pope, the Associate Director of Personnel shall install that pope as Speaker, by announcement. Upon this announcement, that if the player becomes is still a pope, so please treat em right good forever. then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a pope.
\n
\nThis installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.
\n
\nA notice of papal succession is a notice published byIf the Associate Director office of Personnel, that declares that a specified player ADoP is a pope, and is valid if ever vacant, or the named player is indeed a pope. Upon publication of a valid notice identity of papal succession, the current Speaker ceases to its holder cannot be Speaker, the pope becomes the new Speaker, and the pope ceases to determined with reasonable certainty, then installation may be a pope. performed by any player by announcement.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36732,402,405677,405684,' is neither not the current Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel. Speaker.
\n
\nFor seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever.
\n
\nWhen a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e immediately ceases being a pope.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a cardinal becomesAny Player who is not a pope, the Associate Director of Personnel shall pope may install that the pope as Speaker, by announcement. Upon this announcement, if the announced player is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a pope.
\n
\nThis installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.
\n
\nIf the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then installation may be performed by any player by announcement.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36733,402,405684,405729,'A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker.
\n
\n winning, that cardinal then any player may announce that e the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. forever. Also upon this announcement, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as the new Speaker.
\n
\nWhen a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately ceases being a pope. Whenever a popeIf the legality of an installation is not a cardinal, e immediately ceases challenged within seven days of it being a pope. attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.
\n
\nAny Player who is not a pope may installRules to the pope as Speaker, by announcement. Upon this announcement, contrary nonwithstanding, if the announced player is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the pope is installed as the new Player becomes Speaker and ceases to be a pope.
\n
\nThis installation cannot via this method, e may not be performed if there are unresolved challenges regarding the pope-ness of removed from the player. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven Speakership for 90 days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal. without eir own consent.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36734,402,405729,405747,'A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker.
\n
\nFor seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as the new Speaker.
\n
\nIf the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.
\n
\nRules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if a Player becomes Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.
\n
\nIf no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive, unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran Consent. This is not considered winning.
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36735,402,405747,405757,'A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker.
\n
\nFor seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as the new Speaker.
\n
\nIf the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.
\n
\n contrary nonwithstanding, notwithstanding, if a Player becomes Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.
\n
\nIf no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive, unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran Consent. This is not considered winning.
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36736,402,405757,406028,'A cardinalThe speaker is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker. office.
\n
\nFor seven days after a cardinal winsIf an active player who is not the speaker has won the game with no other players simultaneously winning, then any player within the past week, e may announce that become the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. Also upon this speaker, thus removing any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless someone else has become speaker within the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and preceding 90 days. If the new pope legality of an attempted installation of this type is installed as the new Speaker. not challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later found to be illegal.
\n
\nIf the legality of an installation is not challengedA speaker who became speaker within seven the preceding 90 days of it being attempted, then it shall cannot be allowed to stand, even replaced by Agoran Consent if e is subsequently found to be illegal. one of those whose objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.
\n
\nRules to the contrary notwithstanding, if a Player becomes Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.
\n
\nIf no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive, unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran Consent. This is not considered winning.
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36737,402,406028,406169,' an office. office. The speaker is the head of state of this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora. Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on behalf of the speaker.
\n
\nIf an active player who is not the speaker has won the game within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days. If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later found to be illegal.
\n
\nA speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36738,402,406169,406221,'The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora. Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on behalf of the speaker.
\n
\nIf an active player who is not the speaker has won the game within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days. If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later found to be illegal.
\n
\nA speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36739,402,406221,406313,'The speaker is an office. The speaker Speaker is the head of state of this nomic. The speaker embodies player who has borne the spirit Patent Title of Agora. Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on behalf Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in favor of the speaker. player who has been registered the longest.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36740,402,406313,432275,'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.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister Without Portfolio most recently won the game.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36741,402,432275,496784,'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.
\n
\n recently won was awarded the game. title.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36742,402,496784,496820,' the active 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.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36743,402,496820,497363,'The office of Speaker is held by the active 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.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(36744,402,497363,495372,'The office of Speaker is held byWhenever the active player who has borne Rules call for the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in favor of the player who has been registered the longest. Speaker-Elect to become Speaker:
\n
\nThe Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.
\n
\nIf the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.
\n
\nIf another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion of step 3, such as the case when the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed.
\n
\n(unattributed)However, in any case where the above procedure is not completed before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.)
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36745,404,495394,495395,' content. It It is legal to propose a Rule Change which conflicts cannot be applied, or which, if adopted, would result in there being Rules which conflict with other Rules or with itself, themselves, which is are paradoxical, or which cannot be applied.
\n'),(36746,404,495395,495396,'As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals,No Rule shall have any effect which seeks to make the act legality of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of conditional upon its content. It is legal to propose a Rule Change which cannot be applied, or which, if adopted, would result in there being Rules which conflict with other Rules or with themselves, which are paradoxical, or which cannot be applied. content.
\n'),(36747,404,495396,404471,''),(36748,404,404471,495397,'No Rule shall have any effect which seeks to make the legality of making a Proposal conditional upon its content.
\n'),(36749,405,495399,495402,'NoAn Officer may be \'On Hold\' while holding resign eir Office at any time either by a message to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise specified in the Rules.
\n
\nWhen an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office. If a current an Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed resigns during the Voting Period for a Proposal containing a Directive to have resigned without appointing install another player in that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will fill the Office.
\n
\nOtherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, and then the Office should be re-filled in designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office. If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not consent to fill the normal manner. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 386. Office, then the Office becomes vacant.
\n
\nNo player who is "On Hold" may fill an Office. If an Officer goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices.
\n'),(36750,405,495402,495403,'An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise specified in the Rules.
\n
\nWhen an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a Proposal containing a Directive to install another player in that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will fill the Office.
\n
\nOtherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office. If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant.
\n
\nNo player who is "On Hold" may fill an Office. If an Officer goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices.
\n
\nThis Rule applies to Offices in General, and thus defers to Rules regarding specific Offices.
\n'),(36751,405,495403,495404,' Officer may resign eir Office is permitted to, at any time time, remove eirself from any Office e holds, provided e specifies another Player to succeed em, who then becomes the temporary holder of that Office. For this appointment to be valid, this Player must either by a message explicitly and publically consent to becoming the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, new holder of that Office within seven days of such appointment, or as otherwise specified in be the Rules. Speaker. The Speaker can be appointed to hold an Office temporarily without consenting, and may not refuse such an appointment.
\n
\nWhen an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a Proposal containing a Directive to install another playerA change in that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will fill the Office.
\n
\nOtherwise, if at identity of the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office. If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e Speaker does not consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant.
\n
\nNo player who is "On Hold" may fill an Office. If an Officer goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices.
\n
\nThis Rule applies to cause the transfer of any Offices in General, and thus defers being held by the former Speaker to Rules regarding specific Offices. the new Speaker.
\n'),(36752,405,495404,495405,' is always permitted to, at any time, remove eirself to resign from any Office e holds, provided e specifies another Player to succeed em, who then becomes the temporary holder of that Office. For this appointment to be valid, this Player must either explicitly and publically consent to becoming the new holder of that Office within seven days of such appointment, or be the Speaker. The Speaker can be appointed to hold an Office temporarily without consenting, and may not refuse such an appointment. appointment. An Officer who resigns without appointing a successor is deemed to have appointed the Speaker to succeed em.
\n
\nA change in the identity of the Speaker does not automatically cause the transfer of any Offices being held by the former Speaker to the new Speaker.
\n'),(36753,405,495405,495406,'An Officer is always permitted toA Player may, at any time, resign from any Office which e holds, provided e specifies another Player to succeed em, who then becomes the temporary holder of that Office. For this appointment to be valid, this Player must either explicitly and publically consent to becoming the new holder of that Office within seven days of such appointment, or be the Speaker. The Speaker can be appointed to hold an Office temporarily without consenting, and may not refuse such an appointment. An Officer who resigns without appointing a successor is deemed to have appointed the Speaker to succeed em. currently holds.
\n
\nA change inAn Electee to an Office who resigns from that Office may appoint a successor at the identity of time e resigns. In this case, the Speaker does not automatically cause resigning Player is retired from that Office; if the transfer of any Offices being held by named successor agrees in the former Speaker Public Forum to be successor to the Office, the named successor becomes holder of the new Speaker. Office.
\n
\nA non-Electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee who does not name a successor, is immediately removed from Office.
\n'),(36754,405,495406,495407,'A Player may, at any time, resign from any Office which e currently holds.
\n
\n agrees in the Public Forum publicly to be successor to the Office, the named successor becomes holder of the Office.
\n
\nA non-Electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee who does not name a successor, is immediately removed from Office.
\n'),(36755,405,495407,495408,'A Player may, at any time,An oligarch or the holder of an office may resign from eir position at any Office which time by announcing that e currently holds. does so.
\n
\nAn ElecteeThe electee to an Office who resigns from that Office office may appoint another player as a successor at the time when e resigns. In this case, If so, the resigning Player player is retired from that Office; office, and if within one week from the appointment the named successor agrees succcessor publicly agrees to be successor to the Office, the named successor office, that player becomes holder of the Office. office.
\n
\nA non-ElecteeAn oligarch may appoint another player as a successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is removed from the Oligarchy, and if within one week from the appointment the named successsor publicly agrees to be successor to the seat in the Oligarchy and pays a fee of 1 Voting Entitlement, that player becomes an Oligarch.
\n
\nA non-electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee electee who does not name a successor is immediately removed from office. An oligarch who does not name a successor, successor is immediately removed from Office. the Oligarchy.
\n'),(36756,405,495408,495409,'An oligarch or theThe holder of an office Office may resign from eir position at any time it by announcing that e does so.
\n
\nThe electee toIf the holder of an office may appoint another player as Office is its Electee, and appoints a successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is retired from that office, and if within one week from the appointment the named succcessor publicly agrees to be successor to the office, that player becomes holder of the office. resigns, then:
\n
\nAn oligarch may appoint another player as a successor when e resigns. If so, the(a) The resigning player Player is removed retired from that Office. (b) If the Oligarchy, and if successor consents within one week from the appointment a week, then e becomes holder of that Office. (c) If the named successsor publicly agrees to be successor to the seat in the Oligarchy and pays does not consent within a fee of 1 Voting Entitlement, week, then the resigning Player is removed from that player becomes an Oligarch. Office.
\n
\nA non-electee who resigns or an electee who does not name a successor is immediately removed from office. An oligarch who does not name a successorOtherwise, the resigning Player is immediately removed from the Oligarchy. that Office.
\n'),(36757,405,495409,495400,'The holder of an OfficeNo Officer may resign from it by announcing that e does so.
\n
\nIf the holder of be \'On Hold\' while holding an Office is its Electee, and appoints a successor when e resigns, then:
\n
\n(a) The resigning Player is retired from that Office. (b) If the successor consents within If a week, then e becomes holder of that Office. (c) If the successor does not consent within current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned without appointing a week, then successor, and the resigning Player is removed from that Office.
\n
\nOtherwise, Office should be re-filled in the resigning Player is immediately removed from that Office. normal manner.
\n'),(36758,405,495400,495401,' normal manner. manner. (*Was: 405*)
\n'),(36759,405,495401,495410,'No Officer may be \'On Hold\' while holding an Office. If a current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office should be re-filled in the normal manner. (*Was: 405*)
\n'),(36760,406,495412,495415,' the Rules. The active Clerk of the Court may never be selected as a Judge. Rules.
\n
\nAs aThe Clerk\'s salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption of the Office.
\n
\nThe initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted this Proposal. five points.
\n'),(36761,406,495415,495416,' exist an the Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have Clerk of the Courts, with the general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. administration of the judicial process, as described elsewhere.
\n
\nThe Clerk\'s salary Salary of the Clerk of the Courts shall be five points. Points.
\n'),(36762,406,495416,495417,'There shall exist the Office of the Clerk of the Courts, with the general responsibility for the administration of the judicial process, as described elsewhere.
\n
\n five Points. Mils.
\n'),(36763,406,495417,495418,' of the Clerk of the Courts, with the general responsibility for the administration of the judicial process, as described elsewhere.
\n
\nThe Salary of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall be five Mils. receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36764,406,495418,495420,' a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36765,406,495420,495421,'ThereClerk of the Courts
\n
\nThere shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive a salary equal to 2 times as set in the Basic Officer Salary. last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n'),(36766,406,495421,495422,'Clerk of the Courts
\n
\nThere shall existThere exists the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive a salary as set in Courts, whose responsibility it is to oversee the last Treasuror\'s budget. judicial system.
\n'),(36767,406,495422,495423,'There exists the Office of Clerk of the Courts, whose responsibility it is to oversee the judicial system.
\n
\nThe Monthly Report of the Clerk of the Courts shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past Calls for Judgement (CFJs). The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the Clerk shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may, Without Objection, remove any CFJ from the list that e deems no longer relevant.
\n'),(36768,406,495423,495424,'There exists the Office ofThe Clerk of the Courts, whose responsibility it Courts (CotC) is to oversee the judicial system. an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report of the Clerk of the Courts shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past Calls for Judgement (CFJs). The CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its its statement; (ii) the the date on which it was called; (iii) its its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\n the Clerk CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may, may Without Objection, Objection remove any CFJ from the list that e deems no longer relevant. relevant from the list.
\n'),(36769,406,495424,495425,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(36770,406,495425,495426,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\n CotC\'s Weekly Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(36771,406,495426,495427,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(36772,406,495427,495428,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(36773,406,495428,495413,'The ClerkThere shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals. Judgement, as outlined in the Rules.
\n
\nAs a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption of the Office.
\n
\nThe initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted this Proposal.
\n'),(36774,406,495413,495414,'There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules.
\n
\nAs a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption of the Office.
\n
\n this Proposal. Proposal. (*Was: 406*)
\n'),(36775,406,495414,495419,' exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules.
\n
\nAs a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end Office of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption Clerk of the Office.
\n
\nThe initial holder Courts. The Clerk of this Office the Courts shall be receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Player who submitted this Proposal. (*Was: 406*) Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36776,406,495419,495429,'There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36777,408,404545,404945,'TheFor each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period for a CFJ begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge, eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and ends lasts seven days later. days.
\n
\nIn the week following the end of the Deliberation Period, if theA Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed the CFJ, then who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge from the CFJ and assign it to a new Judge, by posting an announcement to that effect. Courts.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges or DismissesDuring a CFJ after Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the end CFJ, then the Clerk of the Deliberation Period, but before being recused as a Judge, commits Courts may recuse the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be detected and reported Judge by announcing that e does so. At the Clerk end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the Courts. CFJ, then e is automatically recused.
\n
\n Judge who has neither Judged nor Dismissed a CFJ seven days after the end of its Deliberation Period is automatically recused from that CFJ.
\n
\nA Judge who is recused from a CFJ in accordance with according to this Rule commits the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge (to Judge, to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts), and Courts. E becomes ineligible to be a Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to be made become eligible again. again, whichever is soonest.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(36778,408,404945,405415,'For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nDuring a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically recused.
\n
\n the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge, Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. E The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is soonest. sooner.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(36779,408,405415,405544,'For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\n recuse the Judge em by announcing that e does so. At announcement.
\n
\nUpon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically recused. the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by announcement as soon as possible.
\n
\nA Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(36780,408,405544,405710,'For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days.
\n
\nA Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nDuring a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement.
\n
\nUpon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by announcement as soon as possible.
\n
\nA Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(36781,417,495430,495431,'That there be established an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n
\n with their eir consent and at the request of the Office\'s controlling body (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players "speaking" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for Offices may establish a different controlling body for this Office.
\n
\n body. Eis Eir salary shall be 5 points points.
\n'),(36782,417,495431,495432,'ThatLet there be established an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n
\nThe duties required of the Archivist may be changed with eir consent and at the request of the Office\'s controlling body (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players "speaking" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for Offices may establish a different controlling body for this Office.
\n
\nThe salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its controlling body. Eir salary shall be 5 points.
\n'),(36783,417,495432,495433,' concerning official posts. Offices. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves. follows:
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as* to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. passage and failure of Proposals,
\n
\nThe salary* to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.
\n
\n* to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,
\n
\n* to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and
\n
\n* to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.
\n
\nThe Archivist office shall is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be determined clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by its controlling body. Eir the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n
\nThe salary of the Archivist shall be 5 points.
\n'),(36784,417,495433,495435,'Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties of the Archivist shall be as follows:
\n
\n* to record the passage and failure of Proposals,
\n
\n* to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.
\n
\n* to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,
\n
\n* to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and
\n
\n* to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.
\n
\nThe Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n
\n 5 points. Mils.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36785,417,495435,495436,'Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. TheThe duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows:
\n
\n*i) to record the passage and failure of Proposals,
\n
\n*ii) to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.
\n
\n*iii) to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,
\n
\n*iv) to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and
\n
\n*v) to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.
\n
\nThe Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n
\nThe salary of the Archivist shall be 5 Mils.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36786,417,495436,495434,'TheLet there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows:
\n
\ni)* to record the passage and failure of Proposals,
\n
\nii)* to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.
\n
\niii)* to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,
\n
\niv)* to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and
\n
\nv)* to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.
\n
\nThe Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n
\nThe salary of the Archivist shall be 5 points.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36787,417,495434,495437,'Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. TheThe duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows:
\n
\n*i) to record the passage and failure of Proposals,
\n
\n*ii) to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.
\n
\n*iii) to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,
\n
\n*iv) to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and
\n
\n*v) to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.
\n
\nThe Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n
\nThe salary of the Archivist shall be 5 points.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36788,417,495437,495438,'The duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows:
\n
\ni) to record the passage and failure of Proposals,
\n
\nii) to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.
\n
\niii) to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,
\n
\niv) to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and
\n
\nv) to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.
\n
\nThe Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores.
\n
\nThe "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force.
\n'),(36789,430,495439,495441,' legal Judgement Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points. Points and loses 1 Blot. A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra, and loses 1 more Blot.
\n
\nBlot losses due to this rule do not apply if they would reduce the Judge\'s Blots below one. It is the Judge\'s responsibility to report eir Blot losses to the Tabulator.
\n'),(36790,430,495441,495442,'A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points and loses 1 Blot. A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra, and loses 1 more Blot.
\n
\nBlot losses due to this rule do not apply if they would reduce the Judge\'s Blots below one. It is the Judge\'s responsibility to report eir Blot losses to the Tabulator.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(36791,430,495442,495443,'A Judge who deliversAll judicial salaries shall be paid by transfer from the Bank at the end of the Nomic Week. The Clerk of the Courts shall, whenever a legal Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points and loses 1 Blot. A Judge who delivers Player has earned a judicial salary, make a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra, report of this fact in the Public Forum. At the end of the Nomic Week, all judicial salaries earned during that week, except as noted below, shall be paid; transfers arising from such payment are to be detected and loses 1 more Blot. reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nBlot losses due to this rule doThe above notwithstanding, any judicial salary earned but not yet paid shall not apply be paid if they would reduce the Judge\'s Blots below one. It is the Judge\'s responsibility to report eir Blot losses decision for which the salary was earned is currently subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it was earned. In this case, the salary shall be paid at the end of the Nomic Week in which the appeal is decided, and then only if the appeal upholds the Tabulator. original decision.
\n
\nThe Clerk ofIf a decision is overturned in the Courts same Nomic Week in which it was made, no salary shall report Point transfers wihch occur as be paid for the original decision.
\n
\nIf a decision is not subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it is made, but is subsequently appealed in a result later Nomic Week and overturned on appeal, the Player who made the original decision shall lose currency equal to the salary originally received for that decision. This shall be reported along with all other judicial salaries for that Nomic Week by the Clerk of this Rule. the Courts.
\n'),(36792,430,495443,495444,'All judicial salaries shall be paid by transfer from the Bank at the end of the Nomic Week. TheThe Clerk of the Courts shall, whenever a Player has earned a judicial salary, make a report of this fact in the Public Forum. At At the end beginning of the each Nomic Week, all the Clerk of the Court shall pay out the judicial salaries earned during that the preceding week, except as noted below, shall be paid; transfers arising from such payment are to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. below.
\n
\nThe above notwithstanding, anyAny judicial salary earned but not yet paid shall not be paid if the decision for which the salary was earned is currently subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it was earned. In this case, the salary shall be paid at the end of the Nomic Week in which the appeal is decided, and then only if the appeal upholds the original decision.
\n
\nIf a decision is overturned in the same Nomic Week in which it was made, no salary shall be paid for the original decision.
\n
\n the Player who made Clerk of the original decision Court shall lose currency equal to vacate the Payment Order paying the salary originally received for that decision. This shall be reported along with all other judicial salaries for that Nomic Week by the Clerk of the Courts. decision.
\n'),(36793,430,495444,495445,' shall, whenever within one week of the time a Player has earned earns a judicial salary, make a report of this fact in the Public Forum. At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Clerk of the Court shall Judicial Salary, pay out the judicial salaries earned during the preceding week, except as noted below. that Judicial Salary to that Player.
\n
\nAny judicial salary earned but not yet paid shall not be paid if theIf a decision for (or dismissal) which the salary was earned is currently subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week resulted in which it was earned. In this case, the salary shall be paid at the end of the Nomic Week in which the appeal is decided, and then only if the appeal upholds the original decision.
\n
\nIf a decision is overturned in the same Nomic Week in which it was made, no salary shall be paid for the original decision.
\n
\nIf Player earning a decision is not subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it is made, but Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed in a later Nomic Week and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Court shall vacate the Payment Order paying the salary originally received for that decision.
\n'),(36794,430,495445,495446,'The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to that Player.
\n
\n the Court Courts shall vacate the Payment Order paying the salary originally received for that decision.
\n'),(36795,430,495446,495447,'The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to that Player.
\n
\n shall vacate the Payment Order paying the salary originally received bill that Player for an amount equal to the Judicial Salary paid to that decision. Player.
\n'),(36796,430,495447,495448,'TheAs soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a Player earns a Judicial Salary, shall pay out that the Judicial Salary to that Player. the Judge.
\n
\nIfAs soon as possible after a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning a Judicial Salary Judgement is subsequently appealed and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall bill that Player the Judge for an amount equal to the Judicial Salary (if any) that was paid out to em for that Player. Judgement.
\n'),(36797,430,495448,495449,' shall pay out award the Judicial Salary to Judge the Judge. Boon of Wisdom.
\n
\n shall bill award the Judge for the Judicial Salary (if any) that was paid out to em for that Judgement. Albatross of Foolishness.
\n'),(36798,430,495449,495440,'As soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall award theA Judge the Boon of Wisdom.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after who delivers a Judgement is overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall award the legal Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points. A Judge the Albatross of Foolishness. who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra.
\n'),(36799,430,495440,495450,'A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points. A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra.
\n'),(36800,435,495452,495455,'Spelling errors do not invalidate Rules ifDifferences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. meaning. In other words, the meaning or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by such discrepancies.
\n'),(36801,435,495455,495457,''),(36802,435,495457,495458,' meaning. In other words, A Player shall not be penalised for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the meaning or validity words of such communication is not altered another Player, or other reference.
\n
\nExcept when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any mathematical term in the Rules shall be construed to have its standard mathematical meaning. In particular, "number" shall mean "real number".
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any way by such discrepancies. other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar.
\n'),(36803,435,495458,495459,'Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all formsFreedom of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. A Player shall not be penalised speech being essential for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words healthy functioning of another Player, or other reference. any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\nExcept when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any mathematical term in the Rules(1) No Player shall be construed to have its standard mathematical meaning. In particular, "number" shall mean "real number". prohibited from participating in the Fora.
\n
\nThis(2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another reference.
\n
\nRegularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(3) 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.
\n
\n(4) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. In particular, the term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number".
\n
\n(5) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those contexts.
\n
\n(6) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language meaning.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other Rule rules which specifies dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(36804,435,495459,495460,'Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(1) No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.
\n
\n(2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another reference.
\n
\nRegularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(3)(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.
\n
\n(4)(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. In particular, the term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number". rules.
\n
\n(5)(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those contexts.
\n
\n(6)(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language meaning.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(36805,435,495460,495461,'Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n Rules shall be interpreted as having by default has that meaning, as shall do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.
\n
\n Rule, shall be interpreted as having by default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
\n
\n Rule shall be interpreted as having by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(36806,435,495461,495453,'Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(1) A differenceDifferences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use substitution of a synonym word or abbreviation in place of phrase by a word synonym or phrase, is abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as the difference does not create an there is no ambiguity in meaning.
\n
\n(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by In other words, the rules.
\n
\n(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical meaning or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions validity of this Rule, by default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
\n
\n(4) Any term such communication is not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over altered in any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar. way by such discrepancies.
\n'),(36807,435,495453,495454,' such discrepancies. discrepancies. (*Was: 435*)
\n'),(36808,435,495454,495456,' discrepancies. (*Was: 435*)
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36809,450,495462,495465,' of the current Game of Nomic, such Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, etc. Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules. Rules.
\n
\nNo two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname.
\n'),(36810,450,495465,495466,'Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the contextNo property of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* entity shall be changed by any action other than those except in accordance with procedures specified by the Rules.
\n
\nNo two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have Rules, when that entity possesses that property solely by the virtue of the same name or nickname. Rules defining that property.
\n'),(36811,450,495466,495467,'NoA "Nomic Property" is any property of any entity shall be changed except in accordance with procedures specified by the Rules, when which that entity possesses that property solely by the virtue of the Rules defining that property. property.
\n
\nNo Nomic Property shall be changed except in accordance with procedures specified by the Rules.
\n'),(36812,450,495467,495468,'A "Nomic Property" Nomic Property is any property of any entity which that entity possesses solely by the virtue value of which is defined by the Rules. Other Rules defining that property.
\n
\nNo Nomic Property shall be changed except in accordance with may define procedures specified by which the Rules. value of a Nomic Property may be changed.
\n'),(36813,450,495468,495463,'A Nomic Property is any property of any entity the value ofAny Entity which is defined created by the Rules. Other Rules may define procedures by Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the value context of a Agora Nomic Property (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed. changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules.
\n
\nNo two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname.
\n'),(36814,450,495463,495464,'Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules.
\n
\n or nickname. nickname. (*Was: 450*)
\n'),(36815,450,495464,495469,'Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules.
\n
\nNo two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname. (*Was: 450*)
\n'),(36816,452,495470,495471,'The Speaker Assessor may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a the vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the Vote vote on that Proposal. Violations
\n
\nIf a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this Rule shall rule is found to be considered a Class C Crime. TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ.
\n'),(36817,452,495471,495472,' that Proposal. However, the Assessor may at eir discretion post to the Public Forum a list of all Players who have already voted on a Proposal.
\n
\nIf a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ.
\n'),(36818,452,495472,495473,'TheDuring the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on a that Proposal which has come into eir possession because e is would not have were e not the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the vote on that the Proposal. However, However, the Assessor may at eir discretion post to the Public Forum a list of all Players who have already voted on a the Proposal.
\n
\nIf a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ.
\n'),(36819,452,495473,495474,' Period for of a Proposal, the Assessor may not is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal which e would not have were e not the Assessor, in an any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal. However, the Assessor may at eir discretion post to the Public Forum Doing so is a list of all Players who have already voted on the Proposal. Class C Crime.
\n
\nIf a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE,This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain from posting, at any time and to the Tabulator is the responsibility Public Forum, a list of the Player those Players who called the CFJ. have already voted upon a given Proposal. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n'),(36820,452,495474,495475,'DuringFor the prescribed Voting Period purposes of this Rule, a Proposal, the Assessor Vote Collector is prohibited from making use of defined as any knowledge Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the current status behaviour of the vote on that Proposal which e would not have were e not the Assessor, in any attempt Assessor with respect to influence Proposals, and the result behaviour of any Player (generally the vote on Registrar or the Proposal. Doing so is a Class C Crime. Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\nThisDuring the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, the Vote Collector is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have were e not the Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prohibit the Assessor Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal. Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n'),(36821,452,495475,495476,'For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\n Referendum, the anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have were had e not the served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing Doing so is a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n'),(36822,452,495476,495477,'For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\n is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n'),(36823,452,495477,495478,'For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\nDuring the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime.
\n
\n those Players who Voting Entities which have already voted upon or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing Referendum, as long as e does not indicate specifically whether the Voting Entity has voted or declared Presence. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n'),(36824,452,495478,495479,'For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\nDuring the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime.
\n
\n or Referendum, as long as e does not Referendum. If a vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise, the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating whether the Voting Entity has voted voted, or declared Presence. Doing so The publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n'),(36825,452,495479,495480,'For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\nDuring the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise, the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36826,452,495480,495481,'For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\nDuring the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise, the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36827,452,495481,495482,'For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum.
\n
\nDuring the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise, the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36828,454,495483,495484,'All Proposals must declare what effect that Proposal will have on the Rule Set. If said Proposal has a Title, this Declaration shall appear on the line immediately below that Title. In any case, the Declaration shall appear in parentheses. A Player who submits a proposal which does not include a Declaration, as described here and in other legislation, shall be guilty of a Class C Crime. Any Player who submits a proposal which includes a Declaration that has not been approved by legislation shall be guilty of a Class A Crime. The Declarations shall be as follows:
\n
\n(Creates a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a new Rule to come into existance. (Amends a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to change wording or form. (Repeals a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to cease to exist. (Transmutes a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a Mutable Rule to become Immutable, or vice versa. (Other) shall be used if no other Declaration has been defined which describes the Proposal.
\n
\n other cases. cases. (*Was: 454*)
\n'),(36829,459,495486,495487,' Nomic Week unless otherwise stated in the Rules. Week. Any activity automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first of the month. Any automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first day of each calendar quarter.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to any Rule that defines another explicit schedule for events. Any activity that must be performed at least weekly weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once each Nomic Week. in the given period.
\n'),(36830,459,495487,495488,'The Nomic Week begins at midnight, GMT, each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first of the month. Any automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first day of each calendar quarter.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to any Rule that defines another explicit scheduleOther Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events. Any activity that must be performed at least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in the given period.
\n'),(36831,459,495488,495489,' at the midnight, GMT, that begins each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at the midnight, GMT, on which begins the first day of the month. Any automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at the midnight, GMT, on which begins the first day of each calendar quarter.
\n
\nOther Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events. Any activity that must be performed at least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in the given period.
\n'),(36832,459,495489,404397,''),(36833,459,404397,404819,'The Nomic Week begins at the midnight, GMT, that begins each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at the midnight, GMT, which begins the first day of the month. Any automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at the midnight, GMT,Weeks, months, quarters and years are epochs. The corresponding Agoran epochs, which begins constitute the first day four types of each calendar quarter. Agoran epochs, are Agoran weeks, Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran years, respectively.
\n
\nOtherAgoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next Agoran epoch of the same type begins.
\n
\nExcept in this Rule, when the Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for refer to an epoch, they shall be interpreted to refer to the corresponding Agoran epoch.
\n
\nAutomatic events that happen weekly, monthly, quarterly, or classes yearly happen at the beginning of events. the corresponding Agoran epoch. Any activity that must be performed at least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, or yearly must occur be performed at least once in the given period. during each corresponding Agoran epoch.
\n
\nOther Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events.
\n'),(36834,459,404819,405205,'Weeks,Days, weeks, months, quarters quarters, and years are epochs. The corresponding Agoran epochs, which constitute the four types of Agoran epochs, epochs are Agoran days, Agoran weeks, Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran years, respectively.
\n
\nAgoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next Agoran epoch of the same type begins.
\n
\n an epoch, epoch as an independent entity (e.g. "each month"), they shall be interpreted to refer as referring to the corresponding Agoran epoch. epoch. However, when the Rules refer to an epoch as a relative duration (e.g. "one month after", "within one month", "for one month"), they shall be interpreted as referring to the ordinary-language meaning of that duration.
\n
\n happen daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran epoch. Any activity that must be performed daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once during each corresponding Agoran epoch.
\n
\nOther Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events.
\n'),(36835,459,405205,495492,'Days, weeks, months, quarters, and years are epochs. The corresponding Agoran epochs are Agoran days, Agoran weeks, Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran years, respectively.
\n
\nAgoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next Agoran epoch of the same type begins.
\n
\nExcept in this Rule, when the Rules refer to an epoch as an independent entity (e.g. "each month"), they shall be interpreted as referring to the corresponding Agoran epoch. However, when the Rules refer to an epoch as a relative duration (e.g. "one month after", "within one month", "for one month"), they shall be interpreted as referring to the ordinary-language meaning of that duration.
\n
\nAutomatic events that happen daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran epoch. Any activity that must be performed daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once during each corresponding Agoran epoch.
\n
\nOther Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events.
\n'),(36836,460,495493,495494,'A Player Voter is deregistered when one of the following conditions applies:
\n
\n(i) E is not On Hold who fails Hold, has not previously asked the Registrar to post remain registered, and has not, for 14 consecutive calendar days, either sent a message to the listserv, cast a Vote, Public Forum, or submit sent a Proposal or CFJ for 14 consecutive calendar days is deemed message to have left another Player of a kind which the Game and shall Rules require to be removed from recorded in a Report which becomes publically available.
\n
\n(ii) E is On Hold for a period exceeding 2 months.
\n
\nHowever, the above conditions do not cause deregistration until the list condition which would cause deregistration is brought to the attention of Players. If the former Player re-enters Registrar in a message to the same Game, it shall be with Public Forum, correctly noting that the same score Voter is subject to deregistration. The Registrar must publicly verify the correctness of the claim to the best of eir ability, as when e left and e shall soon as possible. The Voter is deregistered at the time the message correctly claiming deregistration appears on the Public Forum. If the Registrar does not be considered a new Player. Otherwise, respond within one Week, then e is considered negligent and the Speaker shall enter on make the same terms as verification and announcement instead.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule leaving deregistration of a new Player entirely in the hands of that Player.
\n'),(36837,460,495494,495495,' Voter is shall be deregistered when any Player correctly reports to the Public Forum that one of the following two conditions applies: exists:
\n
\n(i) Ea. The Voter in question is not On Hold, has not previously asked the Registrar to remain registered, Hold and has not, for 14 consecutive calendar days, either not sent a message to the Public Forum, Forum or sent a message to another any Player of a kind nature which the Rules require to must be recorded in a Report which then becomes publically available. available during the fourteen day period immediately preceding the posting of a message which announces that fact, or
\n
\n(ii) E isb. The Voter in question has been On Hold for a the entire two month period exceeding 2 months. immediately preceding the posting of a message which annnounces that fact.
\n
\nHowever,Upon the above conditions do not cause deregistration until the condition which would cause deregistration is brought to the attention posting of any such message, the Registrar Registrar, or, in a message to the Public Forum, correctly noting that the Voter is subject to deregistration. The Registrar must publicly verify the correctness of the claim to the best of eir ability, absence, the Speaker, shall, as soon as possible. The Voter is deregistered at the time possible, determine if the message correctly claiming deregistration appears on claim is correct or not, and announce eir determinations to the Public Forum. If If the Registrar does not respond fails to make a report within one Week, then e is considered negligent and seven days, the Speaker shall make the required verification and announcement instead.
\n
\n Rule leaving deregistration of which might prevent a Player entirely in the hands of that Player. from being deregistered against eir own will.
\n'),(36838,460,495495,495496,'A Voter shall be deregistered when any Player correctly reports to the Public Forum that one of the two conditions exists:
\n
\na. The Voter in question is not On Hold and has not sent a message to the Public Forum or to any Player of a nature which must be recorded in a Report which then becomes publically available during the fourteen day period immediately preceding the posting of a message which announces that fact, or
\n
\n which annnounces announces that fact.
\n
\nUpon the posting of any such message, the Registrar, or, in eir absence, the Speaker, shall, as soon as possible, determine if the claim is correct or not, and announce eir determinations to the Public Forum. If the Registrar fails to make a report within seven days, the Speaker shall make the required verification and announcement instead.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might prevent a Player from being deregistered against eir own will.
\n'),(36839,460,495496,495497,'A Voter shall be deregistered when any Player correctly reports is Absent if either of the following is true: * e is not On Hold and, for the period of fourteen days immediately preceding, has neither sent a message to the Public Forum that one Forum, nor sent, to any other Player, a message of a nature such the Rules required the two conditions exists: receiving Player to record the receipt of the message; or * e is presently on Hold and has been On Hold without interruption for the entire period of sixty days immediately preceding.
\n
\na. TheAn Absent Voter in question is not On Hold and has not sent a message to the Public Forum or to deregistered when any other Player of a nature which must be recorded in a Report which then becomes publically available during correctly alleges the fourteen day period immediately preceding the posting Absence of a message which announces that fact, or Player in an announcement to the Public Forum.
\n
\nb. The Voter in question has been On Hold for the entire two month period immediately preceding the postingWhenever a Player publically alleges the Absence of a message Voter, the Registrar shall determine the correctness of the allegation (unless the Voter alleged to be absent is the Registrar, in which announces case the Speaker shall do so), and announce that fact. determination as soon as possible. However, the failure of the Registrar (or Speaker, as appropriate) to post a timely determination does not in any way invalidate the deregistration of a Voter correctly alleged to be Absent.
\n
\nUpon the posting of any such message, the Registrar, or,This Rule in eir absence, the Speaker, shall, as soon as possible, determine if the claim is correct or not, and announce eir determinations to the Public Forum. If the Registrar fails to make no way precludes a report within seven days, the Speaker shall make the required verification Player from being deregistered by other means, and announcement instead.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might would prevent a Player from being deregistered against eir own will. by this Rule.
\n'),(36840,460,495497,495498,'AEach Player is Absent if either of the following is true: * e is not On Hold and, for the period exactly one of fourteen days immediately preceding, has neither sent Not Absent, Maybe Absent, Absent or Abandoning. Whenever a message Player posts to the Public Forum, nor sent, to any other Player, a message of or a nature such the Rules required the receiving new Player to record the receipt of the message; or * registers, e is presently on Hold and has been On Hold without interruption for the entire period of sixty days immediately preceding. becomes Not Absent.
\n
\nAn Absent Voter is deregistered when any otherIf a Player correctly alleges posts to the Absence of Public Forum clearly identifying a particular Active Player, and alleging that that Player in an announcement to has Abandoned the Public Forum. game, then the Player alleged to have Abandoned becomes Maybe Absent. If a Player has been Maybe Absent continuously for two weeks, e becomes Absent. If a Player has been On Hold continuously for sixty days, e becomes Absent.
\n
\nWhenever aAny Player can cause any Absent Player publically alleges the Absence of a Voter, the Registrar shall determine the correctness of the allegation (unless the Voter alleged to be absent is the Registrar, in which case the Speaker shall do so), and announce become Abandoning by stating that determination as soon as possible. However, the failure of the Registrar (or Speaker, as appropriate) to post a timely determination does not e is doing so in any way invalidate the deregistration of a Voter correctly alleged to be Absent. Public Forum.
\n
\nThis Rule in no way precludes a Player from being deregistered by other means,If the Speaker ever becomes Abandoning, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment, e ceases to be Speaker, and takes precedence over the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker.
\n
\nIf any Rule which would prevent a Player from being deregistered by this Rule. becomes Abandoning, e is deregistered, and the Registrar shall As Soon As Possible announce such in the Public Forum.
\n'),(36841,460,495498,495499,' is exactly one of Not Absent, Maybe Absent, Absent either Noisy, Quiet or Abandoning. Whenever Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, e becomes Not Absent. that Player is Noisy.
\n
\nIf aAny Player can cause another Active Noisy Player posts to the Public Forum become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying a particular Active Player, and alleging that that Player has Abandoned the game, then Player, in the Player alleged to have Abandoned becomes Maybe Absent. Public Forum. If a Player has been Maybe Absent Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Absent. Silent. If a Player has been On Hold Inactive continuously for sixty days, two months, e becomes Absent. Silent.
\n
\n cause any Absent a Silent Player to become Abandoning be deregistered by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is doing so then deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum. Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the deregistration has actually occurred.
\n
\nIf the Speaker ever becomes Abandoning, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment, e ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker.
\n
\nIf any Player becomes Abandoning, e is deregistered, and theThe Registrar shall As Soon As Possible announce such include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the Public Forum. others.
\n'),(36842,460,495499,495501,''),(36843,460,495501,495502,'Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\nAny Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\n to be deregistered become a Zombie by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then deregistered. becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the deregistration Player has actually occurred. become a Zombie.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others.
\n'),(36844,460,495502,495503,'Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\nAny Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\n Class A 20 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the Player has become a Zombie.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others.
\n'),(36845,460,495503,495504,'Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\nAny Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\n Class 20 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the Player has become a Zombie.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others.
\n'),(36846,460,495504,495505,'Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\n Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\nAny Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the Player has become a Zombie.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others.
\n'),(36847,460,495505,495506,'Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\n Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating publicly that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. Player. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\n stating in the Public Forum publicly that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum publicly that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an public allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum publicly that the Player has become a Zombie.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. Zombie.
\n'),(36848,460,495506,495507,' is either always Noisy, Quiet Quiet, or Silent. Whenever Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a Player posts to the a Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\n Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating publicly that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player. Player, in a Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\n can cause make a Silent Player to become a Zombie by stating publicly alleging that the Silent Player has Abandoned abandoned the game. If A Player has abandoned the Speaker is Silent, game if and it only if e is alleged Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny that e the Player is a Zombie.
\n
\nIf a Speaker has Abandoned abandoned the Game, game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E Abandonment, to be detected and reported by any Player. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E The previous Speaker then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an public allegation that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny publicly that the Player has become a Zombie.
\n'),(36849,460,495507,495508,'Each Player player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a Player player registers or posts to a Public Forum, or a new Player registers, public forum, that Player player is Noisy.
\n
\nAny PlayerA player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused another Player player to become Quiet within the last 24 hours can may cause another Active Noisy Player player to become Quiet by stating that sending a message to a public forum in which e is doing so, identifies the player and clearly identifying states that Player, in a Public Forum. If e causes that player to become Quiet. Whenever a Player player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player weeks or has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\nAny Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by player may publicly alleging allege that the Silent Player some other player has abandoned the game. A Player player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny that the Player is a Zombie. allegation.
\n
\nIf a Speaker has abandoned the game, allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order:
\n
\n(i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment, to be detected Abandonment and reported by any Player. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. The previous Speaker then becomes a Zombie. Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) the Silent player is deregistered.
\n
\nThe Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation.
\n'),(36850,460,495508,495509,'Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is Noisy.
\n
\n two weeks or has been weeks, Inactive continuously for two months, or Frozen continuously for two years, e becomes Silent.
\n
\nAny player may publicly allege that some other player has abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny the allegation.
\n
\nIf the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order:
\n
\n(i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) the Silent player is deregistered.
\n
\nThe Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation.
\n'),(36851,460,495509,495510,'Each(a) Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, noisy, quiet, or Silent, silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is Noisy. noisy.
\n
\nA(b) A player who has not within quietened another player in the most recent past 24 hours caused another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy player to become Quiet do so by sending a message to a public forum in which e identifies publically identifying the player and states stating that e causes that player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, Inactive continuously for two months, or Frozen continuously for two years, e becomes Silent. quiet.
\n
\nAny player may publicly allege that some other player has abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that(c) If a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm been quiet continuously for one month, or deny the allegation. inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nIf the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order:
\n
\n(i) if the Silent(d) Any player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime may publish a Notice of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the Speaker-Elect game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) invalid if the Silent player identified in it is deregistered.
\n
\nThe Silent player shall be deemed not, or ceases to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation. be, silent.
\n'),(36852,460,495510,495511,'(a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is noisy.
\n
\n another active, noisy player in the past 24 hours may do so cause another active, noisy player to become quiet by publically identifying the player and stating that e causes that player to become quiet.
\n
\n(c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\n(d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n'),(36853,460,495511,495512,'(a) Each playerNoisiness is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that stuck player is noisy. switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent.
\n
\n(b) AA non-noisy player who has not quietened another active, becomes noisy player in the past 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player to become quiet by publically identifying the player and stating that whenever e causes that player posts to become quiet. a public forum.
\n
\n(c) If aA player may flip another player\'s noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously done so for three months, e becomes silent. another player within the past 24 hours.
\n
\n(d) AnyIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n'),(36854,460,495512,495513,'Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent.
\n
\nA non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public forum.
\n
\nAAn active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours.
\n
\nIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n'),(36855,460,495513,495514,'Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent.
\n
\nThe noisiness of an active player may not be changed if e has posted to a public forum in the past 120 hours.
\n
\nA non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public forum.
\n
\nAn active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours.
\n
\nIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n'),(36856,460,495514,495500,'NoisinessEach Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent. Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\nThe noisiness of an active player may not be changed if e has postedAny Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to a public forum become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the past 120 hours. Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\nA non-noisy player becomes noisy wheneverAny Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e posts has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a public forum. Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the deregistration has actually occurred.
\n
\nAn active player may flip another active player\'s noisinessThe Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from noisy being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within any of the past 24 hours. others.
\n
\nIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of AbandonmentThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent. inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36857,460,495500,495515,'Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.
\n
\nAny Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\nAny Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the deregistration has actually occurred.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(36858,462,495516,495517,'Any VoteVotes of FOR or YES shall are to be treated as a Vote considered Votes in favor of FOR. Any Vote a Proposal. Votes of AGAINST or NO shall are to be treated as considered Votes opposed to a Vote of AGAINST. Proposal. Other Votes are not to be considered as in favor or opposition.
\n'),(36859,462,495517,495518,' or opposition. opposition. (*Was: 462*)
\n'),(36860,463,495519,495520,'At least once in any seven day period, the designated scorekeeper shall distribute the scores of all Players, updated at least up to and including the previous complete Nomic Week.
\n
\nIf a Player feels that the posted scores are in error, e shall send a public message pointing out the error. If the Scorekeepor agrees e shall correct the error and send out the corrected score report within 72 hours.
\n
\nIf the Scorekeepor disagrees or does not correct the error, the Player who pointed out the error, may make a Call for Judgement, stating the error and its correction. If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, then -the Scorekeepor shall correct the error and send out the corrected score report within 72 hours; -the Scorekeepor shall not receive eis salary in the Nomic week following the Judgment of the CFJ.
\n
\n the Game. Game. (*Was: 463*)
\n'),(36861,474,495522,495523,'A player Voter may not be deregistered deregister from the game, except Agora by that player (or sending a message to the Registrar, as specified elsewhere) Public Forum announcing that he forfeits. When a player forfeits, he remains registered for a length of time equal eir deregistration. A Voter who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at the longest possible voting period time date-stamped on that message, and e may not reregister as a proposal. At the end of this time, he is deregistered. Player until a new Game has begun.
\n
\nDuring the time between forfeiting and being deregistered, the playerOther Rules may not vote or make a proposal. The player automatically refuses any selection for judgement, or any define other voluntary appointed duties.
\n
\nIf, at any time during this period, the player announces that they have changed their mind about forfeiting, then these restrictions are instantly revoked, and the deregistration does not take place. conditions under which Voters may be deregistered.
\n'),(36862,474,495523,495524,' and e may not any attempts by em to reregister as before a Player until new Game has begun are without effect; this Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before a new Game has begun.
\n
\nOther Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may be deregistered.
\n'),(36863,474,495524,495525,' before a new Game has begun the beginning of the next month are without effect; this Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before a new Game has begun. the beginning of the next month.
\n
\nOther Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may be deregistered.
\n'),(36864,474,495525,495526,'A Voter Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter Player who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em to reregister before the beginning of the next month thirty days have passed are without effect; this effect. This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before the beginning of the next month.
\n
\nOther Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may be deregistered. thirty days have passed after eir deregistration.
\n'),(36865,474,495526,495527,' a public message to the Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Player who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em to reregister before thirty days have passed are without effect. This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before thirty days have passed after eir deregistration.
\n'),(36866,474,495527,495528,'A Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by sending a public message announcing eir deregistration. A Player who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em to reregister before thirty days have passed are without effect. This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before thirty days have passed after eir deregistration.
\n'),(36867,478,495529,495530,' is hereby defined as any medium defined by which one player sends or posts the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message which, is send to the best of the sender\'s intent, knowledge, belief, and ability, is simultaneously sent Public Forum, then a message send to all active players and accurately dated to within 5 minutes. The terms "listserv" and "listserver" are synonymous with "Public Forum". Active Players fulfills this requirement as well"
\n'),(36868,478,495530,495531,' as well" well.
\n
\nThe Distributor may only define a medium to be the Public Forum, if to the best of eis knowledge and in normal circumstances messages posted to it are received by all Players. Subscription may be necessary to be able to receive the Public Forum, in which case such a subscription is mandatory to all Players.
\n'),(36869,478,495531,495532,'The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well.
\n
\n of eis eir knowledge and in normal circumstances messages posted to it are received by all Players. Subscription may be necessary to be able to receive the Public Forum, in which case such a subscription is mandatory to all Players.
\n'),(36870,478,495532,495533,' is send sent to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well.
\n
\n Players. Subscription may be necessary to be able It is the Player\'s responsibility to receive all media which comprise the Public Forum, in which case such a subscription is mandatory to all Players. Forum.
\n'),(36871,478,495533,495534,'The Public Forum "Public Forum" is any medium defined by the Distributor legally designated as such. If a Rule requires that a message is sent to such by the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well. Distributor.
\n
\n Distributor may only define is permitted to designate a medium to be the as a Public Forum, if Forum only if, to the best of eir the Distributor\'s knowledge and in under normal circumstances messages posted to it are circumstances, any message transmitted via that medium will be received by all Players. It
\n
\nIn addition, sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player.
\n
\nIt is the Player\'s responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive all media messages sent to every medium which comprise the Distributor has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.
\n'),(36872,478,495534,495535,' the Distributor. Registrar.
\n
\nThe Distributor Registrar is permitted to designate a medium as a Public Forum only if, to the best of the Distributor\'s Registrar\'s knowledge and under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via that medium will be received by all Players.
\n
\nIn addition, sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player.
\n
\n the Distributor Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.
\n'),(36873,478,495535,495536,' the Registrar. Registrar. The Registrar is permitted to designate a medium as a Public Forum only if, to the best of the Registrar\'s knowledge and under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via that medium will be received by all Players.
\n
\nThe RegistrarIt is permitted the responsibility of each Active Player to designate a ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum only if, to the best Forum. The temporary inability of the Registrar\'s knowledge and under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium will be received by all Players. of any legal significance as a Public Forum.
\n
\nIn addition, sendingSending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player.
\n
\nIt isWhenever the responsibility of each Active Rules calls upon some Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player communication or notification to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a the Public Forum. Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise
\n'),(36874,478,495536,495537,'The "Public Forum" is anyWhether a given medium legally designated as such by the Registrar. The is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic Property. The Registrar is permitted authorized to designate change whether a given medium as is a Public Forum only if, or not Without Objection. When such a change is made, in order to be effective, the message annoucing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before the best of change, and a medium that is a Public Forum after the Registrar\'s knowledge change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and under normal circumstances, any after the change, a single message transmitted via to that medium will be received by all Players. satisfies this requirement.)
\n
\nIt is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.
\n
\nSending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules calls upon some Player to "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise
\n'),(36875,478,495537,495538,' message annoucing announcing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and after the change, a single message to that medium satisfies this requirement.)
\n
\nIt is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.
\n
\nSending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player.
\n
\n Rules calls call upon some Player to "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise otherwise.
\n'),(36876,478,495538,404396,'Whether a given medium is aA Public Forum or not is a Nomic Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such a change is made, in order to be effective, of communication so designated by the Registrar. Sending a message announcing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before shall be considered the change, and a medium equivalent of sending that is a Public Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and after the change, a single message to that medium satisfies this requirement.) all Players.
\n
\nIt is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that eA Discussion Forum is able to receive messages sent to every a medium which the Registrar has of communication so designated as by the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never be a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player Forum and messages sent to receive a Public Discussion Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. are never considered to have been sent to all Players.
\n
\nSendingThe Registrar may designate a message, by any given medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent communication to sending it be (or cease to the be) a Public Forum, provided that the message bears Forum or a clear indication that it is intended to be Discussion Forum Without Objection. An announcement of such a message to designation shall be made via the Public Forum, and it medium whose designation is verifiable that the message was being changed. Any designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be announced via all existing Public Fora in fact sent addition to every Active Player. any other requirements.
\n
\nWheneverIt is the Rules call upon some responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum. Any inability of a Player to "announce", "post", receive messages via a particular Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive messages via any particular Discussion Forum.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media which are currently Public or "distribute" some Discussion Fora and sufficient data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive messages via that medium.
\n
\nAny communication or notification, this which has been sent via a Public Forum shall be accomplished by posting the considered to have been made publicly. Any communication which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or notification combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it is intended to be public.
\n
\nIf the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise. Rules require a Player to publish certain information, then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is required to publish.
\n
\nIf the Rules require a Player to announce certain information, that announcement must be made publicly.
\n'),(36877,478,404396,404818,'A Public Forum is a medium of communication so designated by the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be considered the equivalent of sending that message to all Players.
\n
\n Public Forum Forum, and messages sent to a Discussion Forum are never message is not considered to have been sent to all Players. Players solely because it was sent to a Discussion Forum.
\n
\nThe Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made via the medium whose designation is being changed. Any designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be announced via all existing Public Fora in addition to any other requirements.
\n
\nIt is the responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum. Any inability of a Player to receive messages via a particular Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive messages via any particular Discussion Forum.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media which are currently Public or Discussion Fora and sufficient data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive messages via that medium.
\n
\nAny communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it is intended to be public.
\n
\nIf the Rules require a Player to publish certain information, then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is required to publish.
\n
\nIf the Rules require a Player to announce certain information, that announcement must be made publicly.
\n'),(36878,478,404818,405110,'A Public ForumPublicity is a medium of communication so designated by the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be considered the equivalent of sending that message to all Players. stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion, and Public.
\n
\nA Discussion Forum is a mediumThe Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of communication so designated by a forum. In addition to any other requirements the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never rules place on this action, the Registrar\'s announcement of intent must be a Public Forum, sent to that forum, and a message if the forum is not considered to have been being made Public, then the announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification must be sent to all Players solely because it was sent to a Discussion Forum. existing Public fora.
\n
\nThe Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made via the medium whose designationIt is being changed. Any designation the responsibility of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be announced each active player to ensure that e can receive messages via all existing each Public Fora in addition to any other requirements. forum.
\n
\nIt is the responsibilityThe Registrar shall include as part of every Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages via each and every eir Report all Public Forum. Any inability of a Player or Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to allow players to receive messages via a particular Public Forum does not deprive that medium medium. The Registrar need not keep track of its legal status as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive messages via any particular Discussion Forum. fora with null state.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media which are currentlyA message is not public unless some rule states that it is public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum, or Discussion Fora and sufficient data regarding each medium to allow new Players if it is sent to receive messages all players via that medium. a combination of fora and contains a clear designation of intent to be public.
\n
\nAny communication which has been sent viaA player publishes information by publicly sending a Public Forum shall be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made publicly, provided it contains some clear designation message containing that it is intended to be public. information, and announces something by publishing it.
\n
\n the Rules require rules state that a Player to publish certain information, player may perform an action by announcement, then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the time player may perform that action by announcing that e publicly sends performs it. If the rules state that a player may perform an action by private message containing the information e is required to publish.
\n
\nIf the Rules require some player, then that player may perform that action by sending a Player message privately to announce certain information, the specified player indicating that announcement e performs it. In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the action to be made publicly. performed.
\n'),(36879,478,405110,405426,' and Public. Public. A forum\'s Publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule.
\n
\nThe Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of a forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on this action, the Registrar\'s announcement of intent must be sent to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification must be sent to all existing Public fora.
\n
\nIt is the responsibility of each active player to ensure that e can receive messages via each Public forum.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state.
\n
\nA message is not public unless some rule states that it is public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum, or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and contains a clear designation of intent to be public.
\n
\nA player publishes information by publicly sending a message containing that information, and announces something by publishing it.
\n
\nIf the rules state that a player may perform an action by announcement, then that player may perform that action by announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a player may perform an action by private message to some player, then that player may perform that action by sending a message privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it. In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the action to be performed.
\n'),(36880,478,405426,405626,' forum\'s Publicity publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule.
\n
\n Registrar may, without objection, may flip the publicity of a forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on this action, the Registrar\'s announcement of intent must be sent to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification must be sent to all existing Public fora. without objection as long as:
\n
\nIt is the responsibility(a) e sends eir announcement of each active player intent to ensure that e can receive messages via each Public forum. forum; and
\n
\nThe Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such(b) if the forum is to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state. makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora.
\n
\nA message is not public unless some rule states that it is public. A message is public if it is sentEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via a Public forum, or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. each public forum.
\n
\nA player publishes information by publicly sendingThe Registrar\'s report shall include a message containing that information, list of all public or discussion fora and announces something by publishing it. sufficient data regarding each to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar need not keep track of null fora.
\n
\nIf the rules state thatA 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 may perform an action "publishes" or "announces" something by announcement, then that sending a public message.
\n
\nA player may perform that performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a A player may perform performs an action by "by private message message" to some player, then that player may perform that action by sending a an appropriate private message privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it. In either case, such player. Any action performed by sending a message must unambiguously describe is performed at the action to be performed. time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36881,478,405626,405693,'PublicityFreedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion, and Public. A forum\'s publicity may not hereby resolved that No Player shall be changed except as described prohibited from participating in this rule. the Fora.
\n
\nThe RegistrarA Forum\'s Publicity may flip be either null, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule.
\n
\nThe Herald may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n the Registrar Herald makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Herald\'s report shall include a list of all public or discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar Herald need not keep track of null fora.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. A player performs an action "by private message" to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36882,478,405693,405832,'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.
\n
\nA Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule.
\n
\nThe Herald Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n the Herald Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s report shall include a list of all public or discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Herald need not keep track of null fora.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. A player performs an action "by private message" to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36883,478,405832,405955,'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.
\n
\nA Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n it. A player performs an action "by private message" to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36884,478,405955,406114,'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.
\n
\nA Forum\'s Publicity may be either null,Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule. and Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36885,478,406114,406213,'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.
\n
\nPublicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-null publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36886,478,406213,406332,'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.
\n
\n and Null Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\n with non-null non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36887,478,406332,406354,'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.
\n
\nPublicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA player performsWhere the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement" 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.
\n'),(36888,478,406354,432418,'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.
\n
\nPublicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\n A player person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.
\n
\n a player person 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.
\n'),(36889,478,432418,496801,' that No no Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.
\n
\nPublicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA 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 person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.
\n
\n by unambiguously specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36890,478,496801,496934,'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.
\n
\nPublicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA 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 person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.
\n
\n unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36891,478,496934,497341,'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.
\n
\nPublicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there.
\n
\nThe Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as:
\n
\n(a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nEach active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.
\n
\nA message is public if and only if it message is a message sent via a public forum forum, or is sent to all players and contains containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. public.
\n
\nWhere the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message.
\n'),(36892,482,495554,495555,'If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for a certain Statement, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all Active Players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act as Judge.
\n
\nIf there are no Active Players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act as Judge.
\n
\n those Player Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all Players, to be Eligible to act as Judge.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the selection of Judges.
\n'),(36893,482,495555,495556,'If there are no other Players EligibleEvery Active Player is eligible to be chosen as Judge for a certain Statement, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all Active Players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act as Judge. given CFJ unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\nIf there are no Active Players other than theThe Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose of a Player randomly from among all players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible given CFJ is never eligible to act as Judge. Judge that CFJ.
\n
\n there are would otherwise be no Players other than eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the caller Caller and those Players Barred from judging by the CFJ, then the CotC Caller, shall choose a Player randomly from among all Players, to be Eligible eligible, any other Rule to act as Judge. the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nThisIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over all other any Rule or combination of Rules pertaining which would result in there being no Players eligible to the selection of Judges. Judge a given CFJ.
\n'),(36894,482,495556,495557,'Every Active Player is eligible to Judge a a given CFJ unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIfIf, after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, there would otherwise be are no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJ.
\n'),(36895,482,495557,495558,' a a given CFJ unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJ.
\n'),(36896,482,495558,495559,' to Judge judge a given CFJ Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\nThe Caller ofWhenever a given CFJ is never eligible Player becomes subject to Judge that CFJ. a Grace Period, e becomes ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding theThe Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule of a given CFJ is never eligible to the contrary notwithstanding. judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf this still does not result inIf, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there being any are no Players eligible to Judge, judge a CFJ, then all Players (Active or not), Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\n to Judge, judge, then all Players, Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nThisIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling at a later date.
\n
\nThis Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJ. CFJs.
\n'),(36897,482,495559,495560,'Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\n e becomes shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs. CFJs, as described in other Rules.
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling at a later date.
\n
\nThis Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs.
\n'),(36898,482,495560,495561,'Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\nWhenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as described in other Rules.
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), non-frozen players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred players barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, then all Players, non-frozen players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, player, then the Caller shall be eligible.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora without any Players. that is a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at a later date. our destination and begin to thaw out.
\n
\nThis Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs.
\n'),(36899,482,495561,495562,'EveryEach Active Player is eligible to judge Judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) CFJ, unless a Rule specifically made ineligible by some Rule. makes em ineligible.
\n
\nWhenever a Player becomes subjectIf the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Grace Period, e shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as described in Judge, but - after taking all other Rules. Rules affecting eligibility into account - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is nevera) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to judge Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account,b) If there are is still no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, Judge, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those non-frozen non-Barred Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule become eligible to the contrary notwithstanding. Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf this still does not result inc) If there being any players is still no eligible to judge, Judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the Caller and those players barred Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. Caller become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf this still does not result ind) If there being any players is still no eligible to judge, Judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding Barred Players, other than the Caller, shall be eligible. Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf this still does not result ine) If there being any players is still no eligible to judge, and Judge, then the Caller is has happened upon a player, then generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller shall be eligible. try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any players eligibleThis Rule can require Inactive Players to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora that is a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and begin to thaw out. perform actions.
\n
\n Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs. all other Rules.
\n'),(36900,482,495562,495563,' em ineligible. ineligible. Non-active Players are ineligible to Judge CFJs.
\n
\nIf the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but - after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\na) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nb) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nc) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nd) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\ne) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has happened upon a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.
\n
\nThis Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.
\n'),(36901,482,495563,495565,'Each Active Player(a) Each active player is eligible to Judge judge a given CFJ, unless a Rule rule specifically makes em ineligible. Non-active Players Inactive players are ineligible to Judge judge CFJs.
\n
\nIf(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but - after taking all other Rules rules affecting eligibility into account - account, no Player player is eligible to Judge judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\na)(1) All Active non-Barred Players active non-barred players become eligible to Judge judge that CFJ. CFJ. (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ. (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is to panic, and run screaming for the hills.
\n
\nb) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nc) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nd) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\ne) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has happened upon a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.
\n
\nThis Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis(c) This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules. Rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(36902,482,495565,495566,' given CFJ, Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players are A player who is inactive, unready, or silent is ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n(1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ. (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active barred players, other than the caller emself, ready, active, non-barred, non-silent players become eligible to judge that CFJ. (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is to panic, and run screaming for the hills. CFJ; then
\n
\n(c)(2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all ready, active, barred, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;
\n
\n(3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This Rule rule takes precedence over other Rules rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(36903,482,495566,495567,' or silent is ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n non-barred, non-silent players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then
\n
\n barred, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;
\n
\n active, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(36904,482,495567,495568,' is inactive, unready, inactive or unready is ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n active, non-barred, non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then
\n
\n active, barred, barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;
\n
\n active, players, players other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(36905,482,495568,495569,' em ineligible. A player who is inactive or unready is ineligible to judge CFJs. ineligible.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n all ready, active, non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then
\n
\n all ready, active, barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ; increasingly annoying CFJ; then
\n
\n then all active, players other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(36906,482,495569,495553,'(a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n(1) all non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then
\n
\n(2) ifIf there is still are no player eligible to judge, then all barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; then
\n
\n(3) if there is still no player eligible Players Eligible to judge, be chosen as Judge for a certain Statement, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) a randomly selected Player shall be chosen to be Eligible to act as Judge. This rule Rule takes precedence over all other rules concerning who is and is not eligible Rules pertaining to judge CFJs. the selection of Judges.
\n'),(36907,482,495553,495570,'If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for a certain Statement, then a randomly selected Player shall be chosen to be Eligible to act as Judge. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the selection of Judges.
\n'); INSERT INTO `diffs` VALUES (36908,488,495571,495574,' an officer Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, then unless those these records are explicitly stated in the rules to be private, then they must be available for public perusal. If a player asks perusal, unless such records are designated by the officer for Rules as private. An Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of any or all of those records, the officer must comply as soon as he reasonably can. For an officer not to respond these Records to a publically-stated any other Player upon request for within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records in his keeping within 7 days is one week, e shall lose a Class B crime. number of Points equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the Officer\'s control and the Officer reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n
\nThe Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated exactly as if e were an Officer. (*Was: 488*)
\n'),(36909,488,495574,495575,'If an Officer a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An Officer A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e shall lose commits a number of Points equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the Officer\'s eir control and the Officer e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n
\nThe Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated exactly as if e were an Officer. (*Was:(*Was: 488*)
\n'),(36910,488,495575,495576,'If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n
\n(*Was: 488*)
\n'),(36911,488,495576,495577,' commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n'),(36912,488,495577,495579,''),(36913,488,495579,495580,' Class D 2 Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n'),(36914,488,495580,495581,' for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class 2 Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n'),(36915,488,495581,495572,'If a Player an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player An Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, or pay a Class 2 Crime, unless penalty to the Point Reserve equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir the Officer\'s control and e the Officer reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n
\nThe Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated exactly as if e were an Officer.
\n'),(36916,488,495572,495573,'If an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week, or pay a penalty to the Point Reserve equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the Officer\'s control and the Officer reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n
\n an Officer. Officer. (*Was: 488*)
\n'),(36917,488,495573,495578,'If an Officer a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An Officer A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week, or pay a penalty week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the Point Reserve equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the Officer\'s eir control and the Officer e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n
\nThe Speaker shall, within the context ofThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this Rule, be treated exactly as if e were an Officer. (*Was: 488*) sentence.
\n'),(36918,488,495578,495582,'If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36919,493,495585,495586,' shall exist be an Office known as called the Scorekeepor. The The Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point Scores of all current Players and shall, in addition to eir other Game Entities, making such a list available on request duties, detect and report as well soon as posting it to the Public Forum at least once possible whenever a Week, and for notifying Players in Player has Won the event of Game due to a Win on Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining Scores. Points.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those classes Salary of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor. (*Was: 493*) Scorekeepor shall be 5 Points per Week.
\n'),(36920,493,495586,495583,' shall be exist an Office called the known as Scorekeepor. The The Scorekeepor shall, in addition to eir other duties, detect is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point Scores of all current Players and report other Game Entities, making such a list available on request as soon well as possible whenever posting it at least once a Player has Won Week, and for notifying Players in the Game due to event of a Win on Points. E must abide by Points. all Rules governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining Scores.
\n
\nThe Salary Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those classes of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor shall be 5 Points per Week. Scorekeepor.
\n'),(36921,493,495583,495584,'There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeepor. The Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point Scores of all current Players and other Game Entities, making such a list available on request as well as posting it at least once a Week, and for notifying Players in the event of a Win on Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining Scores.
\n
\n the Scorekeepor. Scorekeepor. (*Was: 493*)
\n'),(36922,493,495584,495587,' shall exist be an Office known as called the Scorekeepor. The The Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point Scores of all current Players and shall, in addition to eir other Game Entities, making such a list available on request duties, detect and report as well soon as posting it at least once possible whenever a Week, and for notifying Players in Player has Won the event of Game due to a Win on Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining Scores. Points.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those classes Salary of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor. (*Was: 493*) Scorekeepor shall be 5 Points per Week.
\n'),(36923,498,495588,495591,'A player Player is any person who is registered as a player. Player. No person may register be registered as a player Player more than once concurrently. Anyone is allowed
\n
\nIf a Player has to observe be identified for whatever purpose, then the game and participate in discussion use of any issue, but no person who that Player\'s Agora nickname is prefered, but not a player may take official Nomic actions or interact in any obligatory: *any* unambiguous way with any entities which are created by the Rules of Nomic and which do not exist outside of Nomic. identification is allowed.
\n'),(36924,498,495591,495592,' Player. No Registration occurs when a person who is not a Player sends a message to the Public Forum requesting to be Registered. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently.
\n
\n is prefered, preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.
\n'),(36925,498,495592,495593,' Player. Registration occurs when a A person who is not a Player Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting to be Registered. No Registration, unless another Rule forbids that person from Registering. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently.
\n
\nIf a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.
\n'),(36926,498,495593,495594,' requesting Registration, unless another Registration; this Rule forbids that person from Registering. defers to Rules which would prevent such a Registration. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently.
\n
\nIf a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.
\n'),(36927,498,495594,495595,' a Registration. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently. Registration.
\n
\nIf a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.
\n'),(36928,498,495595,495596,'A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules which would prevent such a Registration.
\n
\nIf a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.
\n
\nWhen a Player registers, eir Location is the Welcoming Center.
\n'),(36929,498,495596,495597,'A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules which would prevent such a Registration.
\n
\nIf a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.
\n
\nWhen a Player registers, eir Location is the Welcoming Center.
\n'),(36930,498,495597,495598,'A Player is anyAny non-Player person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends may register by sending a message to the a Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to registration. The person immediately becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration which would prevent such a Registration. have not been fulfilled.
\n
\nIf a that person had ever previously been registered as at least one Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then e shall become the use of that Player\'s Agora Player e had been most recently.
\n
\nA Player may select a nickname is preferred, for emself at any time by sending a message to that effect to the Public Forum, but e need not obligatory: *any* do so. A Player should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However, any unambiguous way method of identification is allowed.
\n'),(36931,498,495598,495599,'Any non-Player person may register by sending a message to a Public Forum requesting registration. The person immediately becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration which have not been fulfilled.
\n
\nIf that person had ever previously been registered as at least one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then e shall become the Player e had been most recently.
\n
\n a public message to that effect to the Public Forum, effect, but e need not do so. A Player should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However, any unambiguous method of identification is allowed.
\n'),(36932,498,495599,495600,' by sending a message to a Public Forum publicly requesting registration. The person immediately becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration which have not been fulfilled.
\n
\nIf that person had ever previously been registered as at least one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then e shall become the Player e had been most recently.
\n
\nA Player may select a nickname for emself at any time by sending a public message to that effect, but e need not do so. A Player should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However, any unambiguous method of identification is allowed.
\n'),(36933,498,495600,495601,'Any non-Player person who is not registered as a Player may register do so by publicly requesting registration. The person immediately becomes sending a registered Player, unless message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration which that have not been fulfilled. fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player.
\n
\nIf that person had ever previously been registered as at least oneEach Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then e shall become is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e had been most recently. does so.
\n
\nAWhenever a person registers as a Player may select in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a nickname for emself Player in Agora at any time by sending a public message within the 12 previous months, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that effect, but e need not do so. begins at the time of eir registration and ends two months afterwards. A Player should be identified by is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir nickname, if own registration.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period ends, e has one. However, any unambiguous method of identification is allowed. becomes Ready.
\n'),(36934,498,495601,495602,'Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player.
\n
\nEach Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.
\n
\n the 12 365 previous months, days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends two months afterwards. sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWheneverWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period ends, concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(36935,498,495602,495603,'Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player.
\n
\nEach Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(36936,498,495603,495604,'Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player.
\n
\nEach PlayerReadiness is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e stuck player switch with values ready and unready.
\n
\nAn unready player may become Ready by announcing that e does so. flip eir readiness to ready.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(36937,498,495604,495605,' a Player player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating public forum announcing that e registers as a Player. player. Unless other Rules rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player. player.
\n
\nReadiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and unready.
\n
\nAn unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.
\n
\n a person registers as a Player in Agora, player registers, and that person player has not previously been registered as a Player player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends lasts sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. days, not including Holidays. A Player player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday. registration.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(36938,498,495605,495606,'AnyA person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering may do so become a registered player by sending a message to a public forum announcing that e registers as a player. Unless other rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered player.
\n
\nReadiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and unready.
\n
\nAn unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers, and that player has not previously been registered as a player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of which sets forth eir registration and lasts sixty days, not including Holidays. A player is only subject intent to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready. register.
\n'),(36939,498,495606,495607,' registering may become a registered player is permitted to register.
\n
\nA person registers or deregisters by sending announcement.
\n
\nWhenever a message to person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a public forum which sets forth eir intent player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to register. be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n'),(36940,498,495607,495608,'A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering is permitted to register.
\n
\nA person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a natural person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(36941,498,495608,495609,'A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering is permitted to register.
\n
\nA person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\n a natural first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(36942,498,495609,495610,'A person whoEach entity at any time either is or is not currently registered as a player player. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player, and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is not prohibited from registering used without an explicit direct object, the action is permitted to register. implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players.
\n
\n person is permitted to register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\n a person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(36943,498,495610,495611,'Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player, and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players.
\n
\nA person is permitted to register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\n player is deregistered, deregisters, e is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(36944,498,495611,495612,'EachCitizenship is an entity at any time either switch with values Null (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is or an entity whose citizenship is not a player. The verb Registered. "To register" and "to be registered" means to become a player, player" are synonymous with "to flip one\'s citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or are synonymous with "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, flip the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players. subject\'s citizenship to Null".
\n
\n person is permitted to may register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters (unless prevented by announcement. the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nWhenever aA player deregisters, e is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered may deregister by any player by announcement. announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n'),(36945,498,495612,495613,'Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. "To register" and "to become a player" are synonymous with "to flip one\'s citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and "to be deregistered" are synonymous with "to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null".
\n
\nA person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nA player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(36946,498,495613,495614,' the Registrar. registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. "To register" and "to become a player" are synonymous with "to flip one\'s citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and "to be deregistered" are synonymous with "to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null". Registered.
\n
\nA person may register (unless prevented byThe verb "to be registered" means to become a player (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Null to Registered), and the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes verb "to be deregistered" means to register, requests registration, or requests permission cease to be a player (i.e., to register. have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to Null). Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive.
\n
\nA player may deregister person CAN register, unless prevented by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. the rules, by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\n player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(36947,498,495614,495615,' values Null Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered.
\n
\n from Null 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 Null). Where Unregistered). Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive.
\n
\nA person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nA player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(36948,498,495615,495589,'CitizenshipA Player is an entity switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA any person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nA player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not registered as a Player. No person and has never been a first-class person CAN may be deregistered by any player by announcement. registered as a Player more than once concurrently.
\n'),(36949,498,495589,495590,' once concurrently. concurrently. (*Was: 498*)
\n'),(36950,502,404552,404949,'TheAs soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a Player earns a Judicial Salary, shall pay out that the Judicial Salary to that Player. the Judge.
\n
\nIfAs soon as possible after a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning a Judicial Salary Judgement is subsequently appealed and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall bill that Player the Judge for an amount equal to the Judicial Salary (if any) that was paid out to em for that Player. Judgement.
\n'),(36951,502,404949,405169,' shall pay out award the Judicial Salary to Judge the Judge. Boon of Wisdom.
\n
\n shall bill award the Judge for the Judicial Salary (if any) that was paid out to em for that Judgement. Albatross of Foolishness.
\n'),(36952,503,495616,495619,'Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk.
\n
\nAny Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nThe CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. (*Was: 503*)
\n'),(36953,503,495619,495620,' not responds respond in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk.
\n
\n transfers wihch which occur as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nThe CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. (*Was: 503*)
\n'),(36954,503,495620,495621,'Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk.
\n
\nAny Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur as a result of this Rule.
\n
\n eligible Player. (*Was: 503*) Player.
\n'),(36955,503,495621,495622,'Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk.
\n
\n will loose lose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nThe CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.
\n'),(36956,503,495622,495617,' not respond responds in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk.
\n
\n will lose loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur as a result of this Rule. CFJ.
\n
\nThe CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.
\n'),(36957,503,495617,495618,'Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk.
\n
\nAny Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ.
\n
\n eligible Player. Player. (*Was: 503*)
\n'),(36958,510,495623,495624,' all Players. (*Was: 510*) Players.
\n'),(36959,510,495624,495625,'There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. WheneverWhenever a Player is required to post something to the Rules state that anything must be sent Public Forum (or to send it to all Players, they may instead be sent Players) e is permitted, instead, to send the Distributor message to the Registrar with some indication that they it should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor Registrar shall then send this message such messages to all Players as soon as possible and in the order received. The first Distributor shall be Wes. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players. Players or to the Public Forum.
\n'),(36960,510,495625,495626,'Whenever a Player is required to post something to the Public Forum (or to send it to all Players) e is permitted, instead, to send the message to the Registrar with some indication that it should be forwarded to all Players. The Registrar shall send such messages to all Players as soon as possible and in the order received. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players or to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(36961,514,495629,495630,' the Distributor Registrar of their preferred email address(es). Should this address change, that Player shall notify the Distributor Registrar of this change. If a Player fails to notify the Distributor Registrar of a change of address, the Distributor Registrar shall not be responsible for any mail which did not reach that Player.
\n'),(36962,514,495630,404587,''),(36963,514,404587,405103,'All Players shall notifyEach Player may list or unlist an e-mail address by informing the Registrar of their preferred email address(es). Should this address change, that e is doing so. When a Player shall notify registers, the Registrar address used to send eir registration becomes listed.
\n
\nA listing is only valid if the Player sends a public message from the listed address within one week of this change. If the listing. (This message may be the listing itself.) An unlisting is only valid if the Player keeps at least one address listed.
\n
\nIf a Player fails to notify the Registrar of a change of address, then the Registrar shall is not be responsible for any mail which did not e-mail that fails to reach that Player.
\n'),(36964,514,405103,495632,'Each Player may list or unlist an e-mail address by informing the Registrar that e is doing so. When a Player registers, the address used to send eir registration becomes listed.
\n
\nA listing is only valid if the Player sends a public message from the listed address within one week of the listing. (This message may be the listing itself.) An unlisting is only valid if the Player keeps at least one address listed.
\n
\nIf a Player fails to notify the Registrar of a change of address, then the Registrar is not responsible for any e-mail that fails to reach that Player.
\n'),(36965,533,495633,495634,'The Bank shall tender Marks to anyAn Entity which transfers possesses Points is permitted to the Bank with the intent convert any or all of those Points to receive Marks in exchange. Upon by transferring those Points to the Bank, and by also informing the Banker that the transfer is for the receipt purpose of purchasing Marks.
\n
\nWhenever the Bank receives Points from any Entity, Entity which are accompanied by a message to the Banker from the Executor of that Entity to the Banker indicating intent that those Points are to be used to purchase Marks, the Bank shall transfer a commensurate number of Marks computed using the primary Mark Exchange Rate to that Entity 1 Mark for each 25 Points thus transferred. Entity\'s Treasury. This transfer shall be detected and reported by the Banker.
\n'),(36966,533,495634,495635,' Points in any of its Treasuries is permitted to convert any or all of those Points to Marks Marks. E does so by transferring those Points sending a message to the Bank, and by also informing the Banker Scorekeepor indicating that e wishes to do so, also specifying how many Points e wishes to convert, and the transfer is for Treasury from which this Points are to be removed (if the purpose of purchasing Marks. Entity possess more than one Treasury).
\n
\nWhenever the Bank receives Points from any Entity which are accompanied byWhen such a message from is sent, if the Treasury specified is owned by the Executor of that Entity to requesting the Banker indicating that those exchange and contains at least as many Points as are to be used converted, then that many Points are transferred from that Treasury to purchase Marks, the Bank shall transfer Bank, and, simultaneously, a commensurate number of Marks computed using the primary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from the Bank to that Entity\'s Treasury. This transfer
\n
\nAll these transfers shall be detected and reported by the Banker. Scorekeepor, as soon as possible after they take place.
\n'),(36967,544,495638,495639,'WhenAt the voting period end of the Voting Period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of votes FOR, and A is Points equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of votes AGAINST. However, only FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Points as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by the Assessor.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall be counted for report the transfers required by this determination. (*Was: 544*) Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question.
\n'),(36968,544,495639,495641,'At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Points equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Points as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nThe loss of points (but not the gain of points) described in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by the Assessor.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question.
\n'),(36969,544,495641,495642,' of Points Mils equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Points Mils equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Points Marks as a result of this Rule.
\n
\n of points Marks (but not the gain of points) Marks) described in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal.
\n
\n not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by the Assessor. count.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question.
\n'),(36970,544,495642,495643,' of Mils Mil equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Mils Mil equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Marks as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nThe loss of Marks (but not the gain of Marks) described in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question.
\n'),(36971,544,495643,495636,'AtWhen the end of the Voting Period voting period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Mil equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Mil equal to proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of AGAINST Votes less votes FOR, and A is the number of FOR Votes. If votes AGAINST. However, only the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Marks as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nThe loss of Marks (but not the gain of Marks) described in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count.
\n
\nThe Assessor Voters shall report the transfers required by be counted for this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. determination.
\n'),(36972,544,495636,495637,' this determination. determination. (*Was: 544*)
\n'),(36973,544,495637,495640,'WhenAt the voting period end of the Voting Period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of votes FOR, and A is Points equal to the number of votes AGAINST. However, only FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of Voters AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Points as a result of this Rule.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by the Assessor.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall be counted for report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this determination. (*Was: 544*) sentence.
\n'),(36974,559,495645,495646,' of registered Registered Players. Any person who is not currently a Player may register as one by sending a message to the Registrar requesting that they be registered. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently registered Players whenever a new Player or Players are added within one Week following any change to the list. this list. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules.
\n'),(36975,559,495646,495648,' other Rules. Rules. The Registrar\'s salary shall be 5 points per week.
\n'),(36976,559,495648,495649,' shall post include a list of all currently registered Players within one Week following any change to this list. in the Registrar\'s Report. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. The Registrar\'s salary shall be 5 points per week. Rules.
\n'),(36977,559,495649,495650,' other Rules. Rules. The Registrar shall receive a Salary of 4 Points.
\n'),(36978,559,495650,495651,' Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered Players. The Registrar shall include a list of all currently registered Players in the Registrar\'s Report. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. The Registrar shall receive a Registrar\'s Salary of is 4 Points.
\n'),(36979,559,495651,495652,' 4 Points. Mils.
\n'),(36980,559,495652,495653,' exist an Office called the Office of Registrar. The Registrar\'s Salary is 4 Mils. Registrar shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36981,559,495653,495655,' a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36982,559,495655,495656,'ThereThe Registrar
\n
\nThere shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall receive a salary equal to 1.5 times as set in the Basic Officer Salary. last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n'),(36983,559,495656,495657,'The Registrar
\n
\nThere shall existThere exists the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall receive Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget. list of Players and titles held by Players.
\n'),(36984,559,495657,495658,' of Players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include the following:
\n
\n(i) A list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname (if any), preferred email address, current Active/Inactive status.
\n
\n(ii) A list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end.
\n
\n(iii) A list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are.
\n
\n(iv) The most recent date on which each Player registered.
\n
\n(v) Each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Active or Inactive.
\n
\n(vi) Each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and titles held by Players. the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent.
\n
\n(vii) The identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service).
\n'),(36985,559,495658,495659,'There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include the following:
\n
\n (if any), any) and preferred email address, current Active/Inactive status. address.
\n
\n(ii) A list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end.
\n
\n(iii) A list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are.
\n
\n(iv) The most recent date on which each Player registered.
\n
\n(v) Each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Active or Inactive.
\n
\n(vi) Each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent.
\n
\n(vii) The identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service).
\n'),(36986,559,495659,404586,'There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players.
\n
\n include all of the following: following information:
\n
\n(i) A a list of all Registered registered Players, with their Nomic nickname (if any) nicknames, if any, and preferred email address. addresses;
\n
\n(ii) A a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace period, Period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end. end;
\n
\n(iii) A a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are. all Unready Players;
\n
\n(iv) The most recent date on which each Player registered. a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are;
\n
\n(v) Each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the the most recent date on which that each Player became Active or Inactive. registered;
\n
\n(vi) Each each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, Active or Silent. Inactive;
\n
\n(vii) The each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and
\n
\n(viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service).
\n'),(36987,559,404586,404756,'There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered Players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace Period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready Players;
\n
\n(iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are;
\n
\n(v) the most recent date on which each Player registered;
\n
\n(vi) each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Active or Inactive;
\n
\n(vii) each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and
\n
\n(viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service).
\n
\n(viii) A list of Players who are Monks.
\n'),(36988,559,404756,404788,' of Players. players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a a list of all registered Players, players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player player subject to the Grace Period, period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a a list of all Unready Players; players;
\n
\n(iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are; the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) the each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which each Player registered; that player became Active or Inactive;
\n
\n(vi) each Player\'s Active/Inactive each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player player became Active Noisy, Quiet, or Inactive; Silent;
\n
\n(vii) each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, the identities of the Distributor and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; Speaker (and eir Term of Service); and
\n
\n(viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service).
\n
\n(viii) A a list of Players players who are Monks.
\n'),(36989,559,404788,495663,'There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility itThe Registrar is to maintain a list an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that player became Active or Inactive;
\n
\n(vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent;
\n
\n(vii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service); and
\n
\n(viii) a list of players who are Monks.
\n'),(36990,559,495663,404837,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that player became Active or Inactive;
\n
\n(vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent;
\n
\n the identities identity of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service); Distributor; and
\n
\n(viii) a list of players who are Monks.
\n'),(36991,559,404837,404905,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n player\'s Active/Inactive status, activity level, and the most recent date on which that player became Active or Inactive; player\'s activity level changed;
\n
\n(vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent;
\n
\n(vii) the identity of the Distributor; and
\n
\n(viii) a list of players who are Monks.
\n'),(36992,559,404905,405102,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n and preferred listed email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on which that player\'s activity level changed;
\n
\n(vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent;
\n
\n(vii) the identity of the Distributor; and
\n
\n(viii) a list of players who are Monks.
\n'),(36993,559,405102,405295,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\n Registrar\'s Weekly Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on which that player\'s activity level changed;
\n
\n(vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent;
\n
\n(vii) the identity of the Distributor; and
\n
\n(viii) a list of players who are Monks.
\n'),(36994,559,405295,405354,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Weekly Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on which that player\'s activity level changed;
\n
\n or Silent; Silent; and
\n
\n the Distributor; and
\n
\n(viii) a list of players who are Monks. Distributor.
\n'),(36995,559,405354,405515,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\n Registrar\'s Weekly Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on which that player\'s activity level changed;
\n
\n(vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and
\n
\n(vii) the identity of the Distributor.
\n'),(36996,559,405515,405602,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n date on and method by which that player\'s activity level changed;
\n
\n(vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and
\n
\n(vii) the identity of the Distributor.
\n'),(36997,559,405602,495654,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Bi-Weekly ReportThere shall include all of exist the following information:
\n
\n(i) a list Office of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses;
\n
\n(ii) Registrar. The Registrar shall receive a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end;
\n
\n(iii) a list of all Unready players;
\n
\n(iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date and method by which that player\'s activity level changed;
\n
\n(vi) the identity of the Distributor. Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36998,559,495654,495671,'There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(36999,591,497258,404546,'The judge ofA Judge judges a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any time CFJ by announcement. If e has been assigned sending eir Judgement to the case for at least four days, such Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a recusal is with cause. CFJ may Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nAn entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current judgeAs soon as possible after the receipt of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as legal Judgement, the Clerk shall publish the Judgement.
\n
\nIf a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the new judge end of that case, provided that e is qualified to be the assigned as judge deliberation period, then the Clerk of that case, and e immediately (in the same announcement) assigns a judgement the Courts shall pay out to a judicial question in that case. the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37000,591,404546,404946,'AThe Judge judges of a CFJ Judges it by sending submitting eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall publish the Judgement.
\n
\nIf a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement. "Decision", "Finding", and "Response" are unambiguous synonyms for "Judgement".
\n
\nFor a Trial Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with the Judgement.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37001,591,404946,406031,'The Judge judge of a CFJ Judges judges it by submitting publishing eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. "Decision", "Finding", and "Response" are unambiguous synonyms for "Judgement". judgement, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers relevant.
\n
\n a Trial Judge, trial judge, a Judgement judgement is exactly one of the following: TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with the Judgement. DISMISSED.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37002,591,406031,406021,''),(37003,591,406021,406076,'The judgeThere is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a CFJ judges it particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by publishing eir judgement, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers relevant. person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nFor a trial judge, a judgementThe initiator is exactly 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 following: case.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* UNDETERMINED, appropriate 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 DISMISSED. apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose
\n
\nThe judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide future play, including future judgements, but does not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37004,591,406076,406382,'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 person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n logically undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n 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
\n
\nThe judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide future play, including future judgements, but does not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37005,591,406382,406462,'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 person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n inquiry case case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play, including play (including future judgements, judgements), but does do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37006,591,406462,432253,' any first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37007,591,432253,432311,' inquired into. into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37008,591,432311,432371,' is yes.) yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37009,591,432371,496759,'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. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n The rulekeepor Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37010,591,496759,496967,'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. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g. "X and Y", "X or Y") counts as a single statement
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37011,591,496967,497259,'ThereInquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry 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. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.) the
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n question are always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true true at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated
\n
\n* * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game
\n
\n* * 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
\n
\n* MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g. "X and Y", "X or Y") counts as a single statement
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37012,591,497259,497316,'Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry 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. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n are always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated *
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true true at the time the inquiry case was initiated *
\n
\n* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated *
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time not relevant to the inquiry case was initiated game or is an overly hypothetical 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
\n
\n* MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g. "X and Y", "X or Y") counts as a single statement
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37013,591,497316,497379,' inquiry 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. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true
\n
\n* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true
\n
\n hypothetical not relevant to extrapolation of the game * or its rules to conditions that don\'t actually exist
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g. "X and Y", "X or Y") counts as a single statement
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37014,591,497379,497435,'Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. 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. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated:
\n
\n* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false
\n
\n* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true
\n
\n* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true
\n
\n* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don\'t actually exist
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g. "X and Y", "X or Y") counts as a single statement
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n (unattributed) substantial substantial woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(37015,594,495674,495675,' Changes. If the If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is Adopted, then adopted, the Rule Change(s) Changes contained within that in the Proposal shall take effect. All Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like Rule Changes, and shall be Numbered exactly like Rule Changes. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules. effect in the order they appear in the Proposal.
\n
\nAtThe Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the moment that Rule 105 least Index which is Transmuted, this not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule shall be Amended Changes within the Proposal to read: take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal.
\n
\nA Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If the Proposal is Adopted, then the Rule Change(s) contained within that Proposal shall take effect. No ProposalIn no case may Enact or Amend more a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than one Rule. 1.
\n'),(37016,594,495675,495676,'A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal.
\n
\nTheUnless another Rule states otherwise, the Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes and Directives within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. effect, or 1, whichever is greater.
\n
\nIn no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1.
\n'),(37017,594,495676,495677,'A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. IfWhen a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, its Power becomes equal to its Adoption Index, and the Rule Changes provisions contained in the text of the Proposal shall take effect in are implemented to the order they appear in maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the Proposal. others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nUnless another Rule states otherwise,For the Adoption Index purpose of a Proposal shall be the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all Rule Changes and Directives within Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal to take effect, or 1, whichever is greater. a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n
\nIn no case may a Proposal have anThe Adoption Index of less than 1. a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n'),(37018,594,495677,404976,' Proposal takes effect: (a) if the Proposer is adopted, its a Member of The Cabal (as explicitly defined by the Rules) when the Proposal takes effect, the Proposal\'s Power becomes is set equal to its Adoption Index, Voting Index; (b) otherwise, its power is set equal to 1; and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Provisions
\n
\nProvisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nFor the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n'),(37019,594,404976,495679,' Proposal\'s Power power is set equal to its Voting Index; 4; (b) otherwise, its power is set equal to 1; and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules.
\n
\nProvisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nFor the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n'),(37020,594,495679,404978,'When a Proposal takes effect: (a) ifNo Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as described in this Rule, no entity can set the Proposer is a Member Power of The Cabal (as explicitly defined by another entity to exceed the Rules) when Power of the entity causing the Power to be so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater than its own.
\n
\nWhen a Proposal takes effect, the Proposal\'s power is set equal to 4; (b) otherwise, its power is Power shall be set equal to 1; its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Rules.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n
\nProvisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nFor the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n'),(37021,594,404978,404993,' of another any entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater than its own.
\n
\nWhen a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n
\nProvisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nFor the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n'),(37022,594,404993,405137,'No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater than its own.
\n
\nWhen a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n
\nProvisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nFor the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n'),(37023,594,405137,405569,'No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. ExceptA proposal can, as described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power part of any entity its effect, enact a rule, specifying its content and optionally specifying its power and title. If the proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to exceed one. If the Power of proposal specifies the entity causing power, then the Power rule shall have power equal to be so set. No entity the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater than its own. select any title e sees fit.
\n
\n a Proposal takes effect, its Power rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be set equal to its Adoption Index, greater than any number previously assigned, and the provisions contained in the text shall assign it a revision number of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. zero.
\n
\nProvisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nForThis rule provides the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. only mechanism by which rules can be enacted.
\n'),(37024,594,405569,404470,'A proposal can, as part of its effect, enactWhen a rule, specifying its content and optionally specifying Proposal is adopted, its power and title. If the proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power Power becomes equal to its Adoption Index, and the minimum of four, provisions contained in the power text of the proposal, and Proposal are implemented to the power specified maximal extent permitted by the proposal. If the title Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is not specified, severable from the others, unless the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit. Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nWhen a rule is enacted,For the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned, and shall assign it a revision number purpose of zero. the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n
\nThis rule providesThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the only mechanism maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by which rules can be enacted. the Rules (if any).
\n'),(37025,594,404470,495684,'When a Proposal is adopted, its Power becomes equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise.
\n
\nFor the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any).
\n'),(37026,605,495688,495689,' be called. called. (*Was: 605*)
\n'),(37027,608,495690,495691,'If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because a Criminal Court has indicated so, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime of which e is Guilty of: Class A = 2; Class B = 5; Class C = 8; Class D = 15. If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because that Player publicly admitted such, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime which e is Guilty of: Class A = 1; Class B = 3; Class C = 5; Class D = 10.
\n
\n one Week. Week. (*Was: 608*)
\n'),(37028,649,495695,495696,'Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.
\n
\nIf the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent Title for a period of 4 weeks.
\n
\nIf the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take precedence over this Rule.
\n
\n of all which Patent Titles which have been granted. awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, and shall publish this information in the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37029,649,495696,495698,'Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.
\n
\nIf the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent Title for a period of 4 weeks.
\n
\nIf the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take precedence over this Rule.
\n
\n shall keep track maintain a list of which all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, awarded. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and shall publish this information in is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37030,649,495698,495699,'Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.
\n
\nIf the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent Title for a period of 4 weeks.
\n
\nIf the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take precedence over this Rule.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37031,649,495699,495700,' be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1. awarded.
\n
\nIf the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent Title for a period of 4 weeks.
\n
\nIf the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take precedence over this Rule.
\n'),(37032,649,495700,495701,' there be exist a Nomic Entity class of entities known as a Patent Title. A Player may nominate a person for a Titles. Patent Title Titles may be possessed only by means of a Directive persons. The awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive must clearly specify the of Patent Title, and the person to whom it is to Titles will generally be awarded. by Proposal, but this should not be taken to preclude any other means of award.
\n
\nIf the Directive is adopted, the person in questionThe Registrar shall be known to maintain a list of all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive fails, Titles that person may not be nominated for the same Patent Title for a period of 4 weeks.
\n
\nIf the Rule which creates have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This list is known as the Patent Title specifies another method Gold Pages, and is part of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take precedence over this Rule. Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37033,649,495701,495702,'Let there existThere is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Patent Titles may can be possessed only by persons. The awarding of Patent Titles will generally be by Proposal, but this should not be taken to preclude any other means of award. persons.
\n
\n been awarded. awarded, with the exception of any such events of which the Rules state that they have no Historical Significance. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37034,649,495702,495703,'There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons.
\n
\n such events of Titles which have no Historical Significance. For the purposes of this Rule, any Title defined by the Rules state that they to have no Historical SIgnificance has none. In addition, the Registrar may Act to declare any Title not referred to in th Rules to be without Historical Significance Without Objection. If such an action successfully occurs, then that Title also has no Historical Significance. This
\n
\nThis list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37035,649,495703,495704,'There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons.
\n
\n Historical SIgnificance Significance has none. In addition, the Registrar may Act to declare any Title not referred to in th Rules to be without Historical Significance Without Objection. If such an action successfully occurs, then that Title also has no Historical Significance.
\n
\nThis list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37036,649,495704,495705,'There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintainAs soon as possible after a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, with the exception of any such Titles which have no Historical Significance. For the purposes of this Rule, any Title defined by the Rules to have no Historical Significance has none. In addition, award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Registrar may Act to declare any Title not referred to Herald shall announce in th Rules to be without Historical Significance Without Objection. If a Public Forum that such an action successfully occurs, then that award or revocation has occurred, and which Title also has no Historical Significance. been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons.
\n
\nThis list is known asUnless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical Significance, but the Gold Pages, and is Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance.
\n
\nAs part of eir Report, the Registrar\'s Report. Herald shall maintain a list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that has been awarded and not subsequently revoked, and to whom it has been awarded.
\n'),(37037,649,495705,495706,'ThereA Patent Title is a class legal item of recognition of entities known as a person\'s distinction. Only persons may possess Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons. Titles.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons.
\n
\n Historical Significance, but the Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance.
\n
\nAs part of eir Report, the Herald shall maintain a list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that has been awarded and not subsequently revoked, and to whom it has been awarded. Significance.
\n'),(37038,649,495706,495708,''),(37039,649,495708,404593,' person\'s distinction. Only persons may possess Patent Titles. distinction.
\n
\nAsWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly announce in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37040,649,404593,405192,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\nWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, eachSignificance is a stuck switch for Patent Title has Historical Significance. Titles with states Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that a Title to lose its be switched from Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Significance to Hysterical Significance.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37041,649,405192,405452,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\nWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons.
\n
\n Objection, cause flip a Title be switched from Historical Significance to Hysterical Significance.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37042,649,405452,405616,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\nWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles.
\n
\n after the Rules state that a Patent Title award title shall be awarded or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, revoked, the Herald shall publicly announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. revoke that Patent Title.
\n
\nSignificance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to Hysterical Significance.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37043,649,405616,405685,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\n Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles. Rules.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or revoke that Patent Title.
\n
\nSignificance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to Hysterical Significance.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37044,649,405685,405978,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\n the Rules. Rules. The Herald\'s report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or revoke that Patent Title.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37045,649,405978,495715,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\nWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person 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 shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n after the Rules state that a Patent patent title shall be is awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly herald SHALL announce the award or revoke that Patent Title.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) revocation.
\n'),(37046,649,495715,406059,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\nWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person 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 shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37047,649,406059,406120,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction.
\n
\n Herald\'s monthly report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37048,649,406120,406145,' person\'s distinction. distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.
\n
\nWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person 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 monthly report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37049,649,406145,406272,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.
\n
\n report shall include includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37050,649,406272,406277,' is an a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.
\n
\n Herald\'s monthly report includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37051,649,406277,406443,'A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nWhen a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person 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 person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37052,649,406443,406555,''),(37053,649,406555,406579,' item of given in recognition of a person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n from a person, an entity, that person 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 person entity Bears, with a list of which persons entities Bear it.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nto bear more than one instance of a
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37054,649,406579,496885,'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.
\n
\n the conditions. conditions. Awarding or revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nto bear more than one instance of a
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) 2008
\n'),(37055,649,496885,497382,'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.
\n
\nA 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. Awarding or revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.
\n
\nWhenWhile a Patent Title is has been awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is (and not revoked from from) an entity, that entity ceases is said 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.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nto bear more than one instance of a
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) 2008
\n'),(37056,650,495723,495724,'There shall be additional legal Declarations which are as follows:
\n
\n (*Was: 650*) 650/799*)
\n'),(37057,651,495725,404597,''),(37058,651,404597,404710,' Players. No Player may Bear If a person Bearing the Patent Title of Hero. Hero is registered as a Player, e shall cease to Bear that Patent Title.
\n'),(37059,651,404710,495727,'Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be awarded to those persons who gave outstanding service to Agora Nomic or Nomics as a whole, but who are no longer Players or who never were Players. If a person Bearing the Patent Title of Hero is registered as a Player, e shall cease to Bear that Patent Title.
\n'),(37060,654,495728,495729,' of eNomic, Agora Nomic, or who has Won a Game of eNomic. Agora Nomic. This Patent Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal.
\n
\nIf a Player Wins a Game despite a handicap factor X, then that Player shall instead receive the Patent Title "Champion*X", substituting for X the ratio of the Points required for that Player to Win, over the Points required for an unhandicapped Player to Win.
\n'),(37061,654,495729,495730,'Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of Agora Nomic, or who has Won a Game of Agora Nomic. This Patent Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal.
\n
\nIf a Player Wins a Game despite a handicap factor X, then that Player shall instead receive the Patent Title "Champion*X", substituting for X the ratio of the Points required for that Player to Win, over the Points required for an unhandicapped Player to Win.
\n'),(37062,654,495730,495731,'Let there be known theThere is a class of Patent Title Titles known as Champion. This Patent Title shall be given to every Winners\' Cups. There are 16 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list of which is defined in this Rule.
\n
\nWhenever a Player who Wins a Game of Agora Nomic, or who Game, e shall be awarded the lowest Cup, if e has Won never been awarded a Game Cup previously; if e already is the holder of Agora Nomic. This Patent Title a Cup, e shall be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal. the Cup immediately above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any Historical Significance.
\n
\nThe Cups are : * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum Cup * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond Cup * (13) Supreme Cup
\n
\nThe first three groups are know, respectively, as the Plain Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups.
\n'),(37063,654,495731,495732,' are 16 13 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list of which is defined in this Rule.
\n
\nWhenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any Historical Significance.
\n
\nThe Cups are : * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum Cup * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond Cup * (13) Supreme Cup
\n
\nThe first three groups are know, respectively, as the Plain Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups.
\n'),(37064,654,495732,495733,'There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners\' Cups. There are 13 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list of which is defined in this Rule.
\n
\nWhenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any Historical Significance.
\n
\nThe Cups are : * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum Cup * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond Cup * (13) Supreme Cup
\n
\n are know, known, respectively, as the Plain Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups.
\n'),(37065,654,495733,495734,'There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners\' Cups. There are 13 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list of which is defined in this Rule.
\n
\nWhenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any Historical Significance.
\n
\nThe Cups are : * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum Cup * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond Cup * (13) Supreme Cup
\n
\nThe first three groups are known, respectively, as the Plain Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups.
\n'),(37066,662,495735,495736,'A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:
\n
\n that a specific Ordinance, Regulation, or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects.
\n
\nA CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions.
\n'),(37067,662,495736,495737,'A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:
\n
\n- clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation, or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects.
\n
\n which explictly explicitly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions.
\n'),(37068,662,495737,495738,'A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:
\n
\n- clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation, or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects.
\n
\nA CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explicitly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37069,663,495739,495740,' of TRUE TRUE, FALSE, or FALSE UNDECIDABLE as provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNDECIDED UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is undergoing appeal, currently UNDECIDED UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed.
\n
\nA Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement.
\n
\nIf any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall be considered illegal and shall have no legal force.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.
\n'),(37070,663,495740,495741,' is is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed.
\n
\nA Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement.
\n
\nIf any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall be considered illegal and shall have no legal force.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.
\n'),(37071,663,495741,495742,'There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as providedJudges shall, in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a Judgement is accompanied certain situations when specifically authorized by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by Rules, have the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless power to issue orders requiring one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction or more Players to perform (or refrain from performing) one or more Actions. Such an order is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. called an Injunction.
\n
\nA Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rulesAn Injunction, in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant order to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement. be legally made, must:
\n
\nIf any* specify the Player believes that an Injunction or any part of Players to whom it does not meet applies and the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to Action or Actions that effect. If Player or Players are required to perform (or refrain from performing). * accompany the resulting Judgement supports the contention that of a Call for Judgement, of which the criteria are not met, Player issuing the Injunction shall be considered illegal is the Judge; and shall have no legal force. * be an Injunction issued in a situation where the Rules specifically permit the Judge an Injunction to restrain a Player or Players in the manner specified.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.An Injunction which does not meet these criteria, or which has otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with the Rules, has no legal effect.
\n
\nA Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies.
\n'),(37072,663,495742,495744,'Judges shall, in certain situations when specifically authorized by the Rules, have the powerA Judge is permitted to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform (or perform, or refrain from performing) performing, one or more Actions. actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.
\n
\nAn Injunction, in order toTo be legally made, an Injunction must:
\n
\n* specifyi) Specify the Player or Players Player(s) to whom it applies and applies. ii) Specify the Action or Actions that Player or Players action(s) the Player(s) are required to perform (or or refrain from performing). * accompany performing. iii) Be sent to the CotC simultaneously with a Judgement which has been legally made by the Judge. iv) Be of a Call for Judgement, of which the Player issuing the Injunction is type explicitly defined in the Judge; and * be an Injunction Rules. v) Be issued in a situation where the Rules specifically permit the Judge an Injunction to restrain a Player or Players in the manner specified. consistent with the Rules.
\n
\n these criteria, or which has otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with the Rules, criteria has no legal effect.
\n
\nA Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies. effect.
\n'),(37073,663,495744,495745,'A Judge is permitted to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform, or refrain from performing, one or more actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.
\n
\nTo be legally made, an Injunction must:
\n
\n iii) Be sent Either be attached to the CotC simultaneously with a legally made Judgement at the time that Judgement which has been is originally delivered to the Cotc, or be legally made by the Judge. Board of Appeals in an Appeal of an Injunction. iv) Be of a type explicitly defined in the Rules. v) Be issued in a manner consistent with the Rules.
\n
\nAn Injunction which does not meet these criteria has no effect.
\n'),(37074,663,495745,495743,'A Judge is permittedJudges shall, in certain situations when specifically authorized by the Rules, have the power to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform, or perform (or refrain from performing, performing) one or more actions. Actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.
\n
\nToAn Injunction, in order to be legally made, an Injunction must:
\n
\ni) Specify* specify the Player(s) Player or Players to whom it applies. ii) Specify the action(s) applies and the Player(s) Action or Actions that Player or Players are required to perform or (or refrain from performing. iii) Either be attached to a legally made Judgement at performing). * accompany the time that Judgement of a Call for Judgement, of which the Player issuing the Injunction is originally delivered to the Cotc, or Judge; and * be legally made by the Board of Appeals in an Appeal of Injunction issued in a situation where the Rules specifically permit the Judge an Injunction. iv) Be of Injunction to restrain a type explicitly defined Player or Players in the Rules. v) Be issued in a manner consistent with the Rules. specified.
\n
\n these criteria criteria, or which has otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with the Rules, has no effect. legal effect.
\n
\nA Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37075,663,495743,495746,'Judges shall, in certain situations when specifically authorized by the Rules, have the power to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform (or refrain from performing) one or more Actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.
\n
\nAn Injunction, in order to be legally made, must:
\n
\n* specify the Player or Players to whom it applies and the Action or Actions that Player or Players are required to perform (or refrain from performing). * accompany the Judgement of a Call for Judgement, of which the Player issuing the Injunction is the Judge; and * be an Injunction issued in a situation where the Rules specifically permit the Judge an Injunction to restrain a Player or Players in the manner specified.
\n
\nAn Injunction which does not meet these criteria, or which has otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with the Rules, has no legal effect.
\n
\nA Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37076,665,495747,495748,' retracted, and if the Judge thinks it is appropriate to do so. The Judge may also issue an Injunction specifying any resulting adjustments to the published game state. The state which result from the allegation being supported. These adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments they must only undo actions be adjustments which were occur as a direct or indirect result of that Move. the allegation being supported.
\n'),(37077,676,495749,495750,'Add to the Registrar\'s duties the following:
\n
\nResponsibility for maintaining the two following "phone books":
\n
\nNomic White Pages: List of all Players; their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player) their real name. Each entry is annotated with one of these codes that indicate the current status of the Player: (A) - active player; (H) - on hold; (L) - left the Game; as well as the date the last change in status occurred."
\n
\nNomic Blue Pages: "Government Listing". List of each Officer and other official Nomic positions (like Speaker), and the Nomic nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May also include other special official information like the address of the Nomic listserver, etc.
\n
\nSome latitude is granted to theThe Registrar shall publish the Blue Pages in the formatting of these Directories. If necessary, restrictions will be imposed. The Registrar shall post them whenever e is required to post a list of Players. Additionally, e shall provide this information to any Player upon request. Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37078,676,495750,495751,'Add toThe Registrar is responsible for maintaining the Registrar\'s duties the following: following information:
\n
\nResponsibility for maintaining the two following "phone books":
\n
\nNomicNomic White Pages: List of all Players; their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player) their real name. Each entry is annotated with one of these codes that indicate the current status of the Player: (A) - active player; (H) - on hold; (L) - left the Game; as well as the date the last change in status occurred." occurred.
\n
\nNomic Blue Pages: "Government Listing". List of each Officer and other official Nomic positions (like Speaker), and the Nomic nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May also include other special official information like the address of the Nomic listserver, etc.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall publish the Blue Pages in the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37079,676,495751,495752,' Registrar shall maintain a list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, current On/Off Hold status, and the date the Player last Registered or went On or Off Hold. This list is known as the White Pages, and is responsible for maintaining part of the following information: Registrar\'s Report.
\n
\nNomic White Pages: ListThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Players; their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player) their real name. Each entry is annotated with one of these codes that indicate the current status of the Player: (A) - active player; (H) - on hold; (L) - left the Game; as well as the date the last change in status occurred.
\n
\nNomic Blue Pages: "Government Listing". List of each Officer Offices and other official Nomic positions (like within Agora (such as Speaker), and with the Nomic nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May also include other special official information like holder of each position, and (in the address case of Offices) when the Nomic listserver, etc.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall publish last Election for that Office was and whether the Office is held temporarily. This list is known as the Blue Pages in Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37080,677,495753,495754,'If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if e does not, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned.
\n
\nIf the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir Presence as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\n Players. If a A Speaker is replaced in this manner, e has eir score set to minus 2N Points upon becoming a Voter, where N is the number of points required for that player to win at the moment e becomes who Abandons commits a Voter. Class A Crime
\n'),(37081,677,495754,495755,' if e does not, no communication from the Speaker is sent to all Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned.
\n
\nIf the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir Presence as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\nThe new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc. but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker who Abandons commits a Class A Crime
\n'),(37082,677,495755,495756,'If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned.
\n
\n then if there is already a the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen according ceases to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir Presence as the Arbiter of Succession. be Speaker.
\n
\nThe new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc. but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. AA Speaker who Abandons commits a Class A Crime Crime.
\n'),(37083,677,495756,495757,'If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned.
\n
\nIf the Speaker has Abandoned, then the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\n commits the Crime of Speaker Abandonment, a Class A Crime.
\n'),(37084,680,495758,495759,'When a Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\n Courts Assistant Rulekeepor Registrar Archivist <all other Officers in descending point order> <all other Voters in descending point order>
\n
\nwith the order determined at the time the Call for Volunteers is made.
\n
\nAny Rule which requires a Speaker or Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, a Speaker or Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule, and this Rule takes precedence over such Rules.
\n
\nWhen the position of Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce that fact to the Public Forum in a Call for Volunteers. All Voters who are willing to fill the position shall indicate such in a message to the Arbiter of Succession, within three days of the Call for Volunteers. If there are no volunteers, the Arbiter of Succession shall make another Call for Volunteers.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the three-day period, and within four days after the end of that three-day period, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Voter, of those who indicated a willingness to fill the position, is highest on the order of succession. That Voter shall immediately become Speaker or Speaker-Elect, whichever position was to be filled. If e becomes Speaker, the old Speaker shall become a Voter.
\n
\nThe Arbitration Period is defined as the period in the Order of Succession starting with the Call for Volunteers and ending with: 1) the announcement by the Arbiter of Succession of the new Speaker or Speaker-Elect; 2) the filling of the position to be filled by another method; 3) the time when it becomes no longer necessary to complete the Order of Succession, according to other Rules; 4) or seven days after the Call for Volunteers is issued; whichever comes first.
\n
\nIf the Arbitration Period ends without any of the first three criteria for the end of the Arbitration Period being fulfilled, then a new Order of Succession shall begin to fill the required position, with the first Voter to post eir willingness to the Public Forum as Arbiter of Succession, excluding any Voters who have already served as Arbiter of Succession for this particular requirement to fill the position.
\n'),(37085,680,495759,495760,'When a Speaker or the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\n other Voters Players in descending point order>
\n
\nwithThis list shall specifically exclude the Speaker, and Players who are On Hold. Its order is determined at the time the Call for Volunteers Office is made. to be filled.
\n
\n requires a Speaker or the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, a Speaker or the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule, and this Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.)
\n
\n the position Office of Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce that fact to in the Public Forum in a Call for Volunteers. All Voters who are willing that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the position shall indicate such in Office by sending a message to the Arbiter of Succession, within three days of the Call for Volunteers. If there are no volunteers, the Arbiter of Succession shall make another Call for Volunteers. stating e does so.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the three-dayDuring this three day period, and within four days after the end Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that three-day period, Active Player highest in the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Voter, order of those succession who indicated a willingness has not yet declined to fill the position, Arbiter. If there is highest on only one Active Player in the order of succession. That Voter shall immediately become Speaker or Speaker-Elect, whichever position was to be filled. If e becomes Speaker, the old Speaker shall become a Voter. succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n
\nThe Arbitration Period is defined as the period inAt the Order end of Succession starting with the Call for Volunteers and ending with: 1) three days, the announcement Office is filled by the Arbiter of Succession of the new Speaker or Speaker-Elect; 2) Active Player highest on the filling list of succession who did not decline the position to be filled by another method; 3) the time when it becomes Office, and that player may no longer necessary to complete the Order of Succession, according to other Rules; 4) or seven days after the Call for Volunteers is issued; whichever comes first. decline.
\n
\nIf the Arbitration Period ends without any ofAs soon as possible after, and within four days of, the first three criteria for filling the end Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbitration Period being fulfilled, then a new Order Arbiter of Succession shall begin to fill the required position, with announce which Active Player is now the first Voter to post eir willingness to Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nAnnouncements by the Public Forum as Arbiter of Succession, excluding any Voters who have already served as Arbiter no effect on the identity of Succession for this particular requirement to fill the position. Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(37086,680,495760,495761,'When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\n descending point Mark order> <all other Players in descending point Mark order>
\n
\nThis list shall specifically exclude the Speaker, and Players who are On Hold. Its order is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\nAny Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.)
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so.
\n
\nDuring this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n
\nAt the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nAnnouncements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(37087,680,495761,495762,'When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\nPromotorthe Promotor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar the Archivist <all other all Officers in descending Mark order> <all other order of most recent registration all Active Players in descending Mark order> order of most recent registration
\n
\nThis list shall specifically excludeexcept that the Speaker, and Players who are On Hold. Its order Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\nAny Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.)
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so.
\n
\nDuring this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n
\nAt the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nAnnouncements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(37088,680,495762,495763,'When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\n Registrar the Archivist all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration
\n
\nexcept that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\nAny Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.)
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so.
\n
\nDuring this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n
\nAt the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nAnnouncements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(37089,680,495763,495764,'When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\nthe Promotor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration
\n
\nexcept that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\nAny Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.)
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so.
\n
\nDuring this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n
\nAt the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline.
\n
\n filling of the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nAnnouncements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(37090,680,495764,495765,'When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\nthe Promotor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration
\n
\nexcept that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\nAny Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this wouldIf there is ever result in the Speaker filling no electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect Office shall instead be filled held by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.)
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce Active Player highest in the Public Forum that the Office order of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player succession who has three days to decline not declined since there was last an electee to fill the Office of Speaker-Elect. A Player declines by sending a message to the Arbiter Public Forum stating e does so.
\n
\nDuring this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n
\nAt the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling of the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nAnnouncements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect. decline.
\n'),(37091,680,495765,495766,' filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\n the Registrar the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration
\n
\nexcept that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\nIf there is ever no electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not declined since there was last an electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. A Player declines by sending a message to the Public Forum stating e does so. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n'),(37092,680,495766,495767,'When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\nthe Promotor the Registrar the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration
\n
\nexcept that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\n no electee Electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not publicly declined since there was last an electee Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. A Player declines by sending a message to the Public Forum stating e does so. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n'),(37093,680,495767,495768,'When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:
\n
\nthe Promotor the Registrar the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration
\n
\n that neither the Speaker does not appear nor any Unready Player appears in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled.
\n
\nIf there is ever no Electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not publicly declined since there was last an Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline.
\n'),(37094,680,495768,495769,' the Office of Speaker-Elect is to rules require that a conclave be filled according to convened, and no competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as possible, the Order Associate Director of Succession, Personnel (ADoP) shall announce that order is defined e convenes a conclave, specifying a collection of cardinals and indicating that those cardinals are to be: convene a conclave. Provided that:
\n
\nthe Promotor(a) the Registrar rules require that the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration conclave be convened;
\n
\nexcept that neither the Speaker nor any Unready Player appears in the Order. The Order of Succession(b) no competing conclave is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. currently convened; and
\n
\nIf there(c) the collection consists of qualified cardinals,
\n
\nthen as of such an announcement, a conclave consisting of the qualified cardinals is ever no Electee convened. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave unless the Office rules specify otherwise.
\n
\nThe first seven days following the convening of Speaker-Elect, a conclave constitute the posturing period. During the Office posturing period, a qualified cardinal may announce eir intent to become a pope. Any other player may publicly support or revoke support for a cardinal\'s claim until the posturing period ends.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the posturing period ends, the ADoP shall be held by perform the Active Player highest following actions in order:
\n
\n(a) E shall determine the cardinal club, which is the order collection of succession who qualified cardinals with positive support from the populace and at least as much unwithdrawn support as any other qualified cardinal.
\n
\n(b) If the cardinal club has not publicly declined since there no members, e shall announce this fact, and announce the conclave was last an Electee inconclusive.
\n
\n(c) If the cardinal club has at least one member, e shall select one of its members to be pope, then publish the Office list of Speaker-Elect. If there members of the cardinal club, indicating which member is only one Active Player to become a pope. That member becomes a pope as of this announcement.
\n
\nThe ADoP\'s announcement in (b) or (c) concludes the order conclave. If the conclave was inconclusive, eir announcement of succession who this fact shall constitute a valid call to conclave. If the conclave has not declined, that Player concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened, any player may not decline. announce that it is inconclusive; upon such an announcement, the conclave shall conclude with an inconclusive result, and a conclave must be convened.
\n
\nIf the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that conclave.
\n'),(37095,680,495769,495770,' be convened, convened and no competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall announce that e convenes convene a conclave, conclave by announcement, specifying a the collection of cardinals and indicating that those cardinals are to convene qualified cardinals. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave. Provided that: conclave unless the rules specify otherwise.
\n
\n(a)The announcement is ineffective if the rules require ADoP is not required to convene a conclave or eir announcement does not list all and only the cardinals qualified for that conclave. However, if errors are not announced until after 7 days after the conclave be convened; concludes, the results shall stand.
\n
\n(b) no competingThe convening of a conclave initiates an Agoran Decision to determine the Pope, a decision in which quorum is currently convened; and zero, the voting period is 7 days, all Players are eligible voters, all qualified cardinals are valid options as long as they remain qualified cardinals, and the ADoP has the privilege of resolving ties as for elections.
\n
\n(c) the collection consistsThe ADoP\'s announcement of qualified cardinals, the cardinal chosen by Agora makes that cardinal the pope and concludes the conclave.
\n
\nthen as of such an announcement, a conclave consisting of the qualified cardinals is convened. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave unless the rules specify otherwise.
\n
\nThe first seven days following the convening of a conclave constitute the posturing period. During the posturing period, a qualifiedIf no cardinal may announce eir intent to become a pope. Any other player may publicly support or revoke support for a cardinal\'s claim until the posturing period ends.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the posturing period ends, be legally chosen by Agora, the ADoP shall perform the following actions in order:
\n
\n(a) E shall determine the cardinal club, which is the collection of qualified cardinals with positive support from the populace and at least as much unwithdrawn support as any other qualified cardinal.
\n
\n(b) If the cardinal club has no members, e shall announce this fact, so announce, and announce the conclave was inconclusive.
\n
\n(c) If the cardinal club has at least one member, e shall select one of its members to be pope, then publish the list of members of the cardinal club, indicating which member is to become a pope. That member becomes a pope as of this announcement.
\n
\nThe ADoP\'s announcement in (b) or (c) concludes the conclave. If the conclave was inconclusive, eir announcement of this fact shall constitute as a valid call to conclave. cliffhanger. If the a conclave has not concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened, any player may announce that it is inconclusive; upon such an announcement, the conclave shall conclude with an inconclusive result, and thus conclude it as a cliffhanger. When an conclave concludes as a cliffhanger, this canon calls for a consecutive conclave must to be convened. convened to calculate the correct cardinal.
\n
\nIf the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that conclave.
\n'),(37096,680,495770,495771,'When the rules require that a conclave be convened and no competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall convene a conclave by announcement, specifying the collection of qualified cardinals. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave unless the rules specify otherwise.
\n
\nThe announcement is ineffective if the ADoP is not required to convene a conclave or eir announcement does not list all and only the cardinals qualified for that conclave. However, if errors are not announced until after 7 days after the conclave concludes, the results shall stand.
\n
\nThe convening of a conclave initiates an Agoran Decision to determine the Pope, a decision in which quorum is zero, the voting period is 7 days, all Players are eligible voters, all qualified cardinals are valid options as long as they remain qualified cardinals, and the ADoP has the privilege of resolving ties as for elections.
\n
\nThe ADoP\'s announcement of the cardinal chosen by Agora makes that cardinal the pope and concludes the conclave.
\n
\nIf no cardinal may be legally chosen by Agora, the ADoP shall so announce, and the conclave concludes as a cliffhanger. If a conclave has not concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened, any player may announce that it is inconclusive and thus conclude it as a cliffhanger. When an conclave concludes as a cliffhanger, this canon calls for a consecutive conclave to be convened to calculate the correct cardinal.
\n
\nIf the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that conclave.
\n'),(37097,681,495772,495773,'The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\nIf a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\nIfWhen a Speaker is replaced voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, e loses 10 points upon becoming a Voter, and, if the resulting score is greater than former Speaker shall lose 25 Mark, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the average score start of all Players, eir score is reset to the average of all Players. next Game.
\n'),(37098,681,495773,495774,'The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\nIf a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\n 25 Mark, Marks, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game.
\n'),(37099,681,495774,495775,'The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\nIf a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\n lose 25 Marks, 5 Mil, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game.
\n'),(37100,681,495775,495776,' all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with Players, at which point the Speaker as Player who holds the Arbiter Office of Succession.
\n
\nIf a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\nWhen a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 5 Mil, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game.
\n'),(37101,681,495776,495777,'The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\n from Winning nominating eimself for Speaker-Elect until the start of the next Game. quarter.
\n'),(37102,681,495777,495778,'The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\n lose 5 Mil, 1 VT, and e shall further be prevented from nominating eimself for Speaker-Elect until the start of the next quarter.
\n'),(37103,681,495778,495779,'The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\n nominating eimself emself for Speaker-Elect until the start of the next quarter.
\n'),(37104,681,495779,495780,'The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which pointIf the Player who holds Speaker announces in the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and Public Forum that e is giving up the old Speakership voluntarily, a Speaker ceases to be Speaker. Transition occurs.
\n
\nWhenAs soon as possible after the Transition is completed, the new Speaker shall bill the former Speaker one Voting Token.
\n
\nWhen a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 1 VT, and e shall further be is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the start of the next quarter. quarter, whichever is longest.
\n'),(37105,681,495780,495781,' voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2 Infraction of Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker Transition occurs.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the Transition This Infraction is completed, to be reported by the new Speaker shall bill once the former Speaker one Voting Token. Transition is complete.
\n
\nWhen a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the start of the next quarter, whichever is longest.
\n'),(37106,681,495781,404653,' Speaker publicly announces in the Public Forum that e is giving up the Speakership voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2 Infraction of Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker Transition occurs. This This Infraction is to be reported by the new Speaker once the Transition is complete.
\n
\nWhen a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the start of the next quarter, whichever is longest.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37107,681,404653,405534,'If the Speaker publicly announces that e is giving up the Speakership voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2 Infraction of Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker Transition occurs. This Infraction is toA conclave must be reported by the new Speaker once convened whenever any of the Transition is complete. following events occur:
\n
\nWhen a(a) the Speaker voluntarily gives up resigns the Speakership in this manner, e Speakership;
\n
\n(b) the Speaker becomes inactive;
\n
\n(c) the Herald confirms an allegation that the Speaker is prevented from nominating emself lawless;
\n
\n(d) a valid notice of deregistration naming the Speaker is published;
\n
\n(e) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the Speaker was abiding at the Office time of Speaker-Elect the Call for a period lasting Revolt, in which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified cardinals for the conclave;
\n
\n(f) two weeks, or until more cardinals simultaneously win the start of game, in which case these cardinals are the next quarter, whichever is longest. only qualified cardinals for the conclave;
\n
\n(g) no pope has become Speaker in the past six months;
\n
\n(h) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker; or
\n
\n(i) a conclave has concluded with an inconclusive result.
\n
\nSo there\'s always hope that you can be pope.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37108,681,405534,405676,'A conclave must be convenedAgora exits from Conclave whenever any of the following events occur: a player becomes a pope.
\n
\n(a)Agora enters into Conclave whenever there is no pope and one of the Speaker resigns the Speakership; following triggering events occurs:
\n
\n(b)(a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership, becomes inactive; inactive, or otherwise ceases to be Speaker without another player being installed as Speaker;
\n
\n(c)(b) the Herald confirms an allegation that success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the Speaker is lawless; was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified cardinals;
\n
\n(d) a valid notice of deregistration naming(c) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the Speaker is published; game, in which case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals;
\n
\n(e) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the(d) no pope has become Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified cardinals for the conclave; past six months; or
\n
\n(f) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals for the conclave;(e) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker.
\n
\n(g) no pope has become SpeakerAs soon as possible after Agora enters into conclave, the Associate Director of Personnel must announce the fact and publish a list of qualified cardinals. All cardinals are considered qualified unless specifically restricted by the particular triggering event. If Agora is already in conclave when a triggering event occurs, Agora remains in conclave, but the qualification of each cardinal is modified to reflect the past six months; more recent event.
\n
\n(h)While Agora is in conclave, any player may make a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker; or
\n
\n(i) qualified Cardinal into a conclave has concluded pope, with an inconclusive result. Agoran consent. If the legality of this action is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.
\n
\nSo there\'s always hope that you can be pope.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37109,681,405676,495785,'Agora exits from Conclave whenever a player becomes a pope.
\n
\nAgora enters into Conclave whenever there is no pope and one of the following triggering events occurs:
\n
\n(a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership, becomes inactive, or otherwise ceases to be Speaker without another player being installed as Speaker;
\n
\n(b) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified cardinals;
\n
\n(c) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals;
\n
\n(d) no pope has become Speaker for the past six months; or
\n
\n(e) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after Agora enters into conclave, the Associate Director of Personnel must announce the fact and publish a list of qualified cardinals. All cardinals are considered qualified unless specifically restricted by the particular triggering event. If Agora is already in conclave when a triggering event occurs, Agora remains in conclave, but the qualification of each cardinal is modified to reflect the more recent event.
\n
\nWhile Agora is in conclave, any player may make a qualified Cardinal into a pope, with Agoran consent. If the legality of this action is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.
\n
\nSo there\'s always hope that you can be pope.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37110,683,404490,404738,'A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require.
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.
\n
\nA vote cast by an entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.
\n'),(37111,683,404738,404749,''),(37112,683,404749,405438,' Proposal. Once cast, a A Voter may change or cancel eir vote cannot be changed or cancelled votes during the Voting Period by informing the Voter which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require. Assessor.
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.
\n'),(37113,683,405438,405582,'A Voter authorised to cast votesAn eligible voter on a particular Proposal may do so only by informing Agoran decision submits a ballot to the Assessor vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which one of the vote or votes available options e is casting on that Proposal. A Voter may change or cancel eir vote or votes during selects. To be valid, the Voting Period by informing ballot must satisfy the Assessor. following conditions:
\n
\nA vote upon a Proposal must(a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the voting period for the decision.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be one decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period.
\n
\nThe strength of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which option is not one the number of these is not a vote upon a Proposal. valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther 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.
\n'),(37114,683,405582,405905,'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:
\n
\n submitted by an eligible voter during the voting period for the decision. decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period.
\n
\nThe strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther 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.
\n
\nthe matter
\n'),(37115,683,405905,496730,'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:
\n
\n(a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period.
\n
\nAmong 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.
\n
\nThe strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther 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.
\n
\nthe matter
\n'),(37116,683,496730,497426,'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:
\n
\n(a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission.
\n
\n(b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
\n
\n(c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter.
\n
\n(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period.
\n
\nAmong 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.
\n
\nThe strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option.
\n
\nOther 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.
\n
\nthe matter
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(37117,689,495787,495788,'If, for any reason, anAn Office is vacant, that fact shall be announced by "held in the Electioneer. The Electioneer shall be normal fashion" if and only if the Registrar; Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in eir absence, the Speaker. All Players willing normal fashion is said to hold the Office shall notify the Electioneer of be held temporarily.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after it occurs that fact within three days of eir announcement of the vacancy. At the end of the three day period, there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Electioneer Registrar shall randomly choose one player from those who indicated a willingness initiate an Election to hold the fill that Office, and as described elsewhere. The winner of that Player Election shall become then hold that Officer. This rule applies to Offices in general, and thus defers to Rules for specific Offices. Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.
\n'),(37118,689,495788,495791,'An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily.
\n
\n elsewhere. However, if the Office in question is that of the Registrar, the Speaker shall instead initiate the Election. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.
\n'),(37119,689,495791,495792,'An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily.
\n
\n an undelegated Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. However, if the Office in question is that of the Registrar, the Speaker shall instead initiate the Election. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.
\n'),(37120,689,495792,495793,'An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after it occurs thatWhenever there is an undelegated Office which is being held temporarily, and with no current Electee, for which no an Election is already not currently being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill for that Office, as described elsewhere. However, if elsewhere, unless the Office in question is that of the Registrar, Registrar; in that case, the Speaker shall instead initiate conduct the Election. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office. Election.
\n'),(37121,689,495793,495794,' the Registrar Payroll Clerk shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described elsewhere, unless the Office is that of Registrar; Payroll Clerk; in that case, the Speaker shall conduct the Election.
\n'),(37122,689,495794,495795,'Whenever there isAs soon as possible after an Office with no current Electee, for which ceases to have an Election Electee (or is not currently being conducted, created without installing an Electee), the Payroll Clerk designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described elsewhere, by other Rules.
\n
\nThe designated conductor of Office Elections is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy, unless the Office in question is that of Payroll Clerk; Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; in that case, the Speaker shall conduct designated conductor is the Election. Speaker.
\n'),(37123,689,495795,495796,'As soon as possible after an Office ceases to have an Electee (or is created without installing an Electee), the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules.
\n
\n the Grand Warden Assistant Director of the Oligarchy, Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Grand Warden Assistant Director of the Oligarchy; Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker.
\n'),(37124,689,495796,495797,' after
\n
\na) an Office ceases to have an Electee (or Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee), the Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;
\n
\nthe designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. Rules. This requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.
\n
\nThe designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker.
\n'),(37125,689,495797,495798,'As soon as possible after
\n
\na) an Office ceases to have an Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;
\n
\nthe designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.
\n
\n the Assistant Associate Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Assistant Associate Director of Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker.
\n'),(37126,689,495798,495799,'As soon as possible afterAn election to fill an office must be held whenever:
\n
\na) an Office(a) the office ceases to have an Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale; electee;
\n
\nthe designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This requirement is cancelled if(b) the Office comes to have office is created without installing an Electee. electee; or
\n
\nThe designated conductor of Office Elections(c) an election to fill that office fails, and no election for that office is the Associate Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question progress.
\n
\nAs long as an election to fill an office is in progress, no other election to fill that of Associate Director of Personnel; office may be initiated. An election is in progress from the time it is initiated until it is resolved.
\n
\nIf a player required to initiate an election fails to do so as soon as possible, then any player may announce that case, the designated conductor election has failed. Provided that this assertion is indeed correct, then upon this announcement the Speaker. election fails.
\n'),(37127,689,495799,495790,'An election Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to fill an office must be held whenever: temporarily.
\n
\n(a)As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the office ceases to have Registrar shall initiate an electee; Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.
\n
\n(b) the office is created without installing an electee; or
\n
\n(c) an electionThis Rule defers to fill that office fails, and no election for that office is in progress.
\n
\nAs long as an election to fill an office is in progress, no all other election to fill that office may be initiated. An election is in progress from the time it is initiated until it is resolved.
\n
\nIf a player required to initiate an election fails to Rules which do so as soon as possible, then any player may announce that the election has failed. Provided that this assertion is indeed correct, then upon not contain this announcement the election fails. sentence.
\n'),(37128,689,495790,495789,'An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37129,689,495789,495800,'An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.
\n'),(37130,692,495801,495802,' Points in eir possession to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer.
\n
\nIf any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer.
\n
\nAll Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points.
\n'),(37131,693,405619,405736,' three stages: stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n the decision: The decisionmaking process begins when a person authorized to initiate the decision announces the matter to be decided, including any additional information the rules require to be in that announcement.
\n
\n(b) decision. (b) Voting of the people: Immediately thereafter, the voting period for the decision begins. During the voting period, eligible voters may vote on the matter, as described elsewhere.
\n
\n(c) people. (c) Resolution of the decision: After the voting period for the decision ends, any person authorized by the rules to resolve the decision may announce that the matter has been decided, specifying the option selected by Agora. decision.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37132,693,405736,496727,' the decisionmaking decision-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37133,693,496727,497424,'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:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision.
\n
\n(unattributed)(unattributed) ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(37134,693,497424,404485,'When the rules callsThe Voting Period for an Agoran decision to be made, the decision-making process takes place in a Proposal is seven days, beginning when the following three stages, each described elsewhere: Proposal is distributed. Other Rules may specify other lengths of Voting Periods for particular classes of Proposals.
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision.
\n
\n(unattributed) ais523), 23 January 2009
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37135,698,404540,404718,'Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\n e becomes shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs. CFJs, as described in other Rules.
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller shall be eligible.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling at a later date.
\n
\nThis Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs.
\n'),(37136,698,404718,404901,'Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule.
\n
\nWhenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as described in other Rules.
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), non-frozen players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred players barred by the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, then all Players, non-frozen players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, player, then the Caller shall be eligible.
\n
\n any Players players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora without any Players. that is a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at a later date. our destination and begin to thaw out.
\n
\nThis Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs.
\n'),(37137,698,404901,404941,'EveryEach Active Player is eligible to judge Judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) CFJ, unless a Rule specifically made ineligible by some Rule. makes em ineligible.
\n
\nWhenever a Player becomes subjectIf the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Grace Period, e shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as described in Judge, but - after taking all other Rules. Rules affecting eligibility into account - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\nThe Caller of a given CFJ is nevera) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to judge Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account,b) If there are is still no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, Judge, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those non-frozen non-Barred Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule become eligible to the contrary notwithstanding. Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf this still does not result inc) If there being any players is still no eligible to judge, Judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the Caller and those players barred Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. Caller become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf this still does not result ind) If there being any players is still no eligible to judge, Judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding Barred Players, other than the Caller, shall be eligible. Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nIf this still does not result ine) If there being any players is still no eligible to judge, and Judge, then the Caller is has happened upon a player, then generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller shall be eligible. try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.
\n
\nIf this still does not result in there being any players eligibleThis Rule can require Inactive Players to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora that is a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and begin to thaw out. perform actions.
\n
\n Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs. all other Rules.
\n'),(37138,698,404941,405036,' em ineligible. ineligible. Non-active Players are ineligible to Judge CFJs.
\n
\nIf the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but - after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\na) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nb) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nc) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nd) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\ne) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has happened upon a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.
\n
\nThis Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.
\n'),(37139,698,405036,405089,'Each Active Player(a) Each active player is eligible to Judge judge a given CFJ, unless a Rule rule specifically makes em ineligible. Non-active Players Inactive players are ineligible to Judge judge CFJs.
\n
\nIf(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but - after taking all other Rules rules affecting eligibility into account - account, no Player player is eligible to Judge judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\na)(1) All Active non-Barred Players active non-barred players become eligible to Judge judge that CFJ.
\n
\nb)(2) If there is still no player eligible Judge, to judge, then all non-frozen non-Barred Players active barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to Judge judge that CFJ.
\n
\nc)(3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Players Barred by the Caller become eligible game is in serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is to Judge that CFJ. panic, and run screaming for the hills.
\n
\nd) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\ne) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has happened upon a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.
\n
\nThis Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.
\n
\nThis(c) This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules. Rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(37140,698,405089,405095,'(a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given CFJ, unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players are ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n CFJ.
\n
\n(2) (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ.
\n
\n(3) (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is to panic, and run screaming for the hills.
\n
\n(c) This Rule takes precedence over other Rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(37141,698,405095,405528,' given CFJ, Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players are A player who is inactive, unready, or silent is ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n(1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ. (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active barred players, other than the caller emself, ready, active, non-barred, non-silent players become eligible to judge that CFJ. (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is to panic, and run screaming for the hills. CFJ; then
\n
\n(c)(2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all ready, active, barred, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;
\n
\n(3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This Rule rule takes precedence over other Rules rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(37142,698,405528,405601,' or silent is ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n non-barred, non-silent players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then
\n
\n barred, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;
\n
\n active, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(37143,698,405601,405641,' is inactive, unready, inactive or unready is ineligible to judge CFJs.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n active, non-barred, non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then
\n
\n active, barred, barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;
\n
\n active, players, players other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(37144,698,405641,405708,' em ineligible. A player who is inactive or unready is ineligible to judge CFJs. ineligible.
\n
\n(b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:
\n
\n all ready, active, non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then
\n
\n all ready, active, barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ; increasingly annoying CFJ; then
\n
\n then all active, players other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;
\n
\n(4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let em deal with it.
\n
\n(c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.
\n'),(37145,714,495805,495807,'A Group is initially formed byLet there be a set Class of Players which has registered with the Registrar to form Organization known as a Group; other Players may join later. Each Group has a Name, a Membership, a Vizier, an Ordinancekeepor, a Treasury, an Initial Set of Ordinances, and an associated form of Currency, called the <name> Coins, where <name> is the Name of the Group.
\n
\n1. The Name may not be the NameA Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of another Group. its Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as the Group\'s Vizier.
\n
\n2.A Group has an associated form of Currency. The Membership generic name of all Group Currencies is a set "Coins." The specific name of Players; these Players are Members a Group\'s Currency is <name> Coins, where <name> is the Name of the Group, and all other Players are not. Group.
\n
\n3. Synchronously withPlayers within the registration of a Group, two positions Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are created known as the <name> Vizier and the <name> Ordinancekeepor, where <name> is the Name of the Group. These positions are not Offices, and they may only be held by members of the Group. These positions may never be vacant while Group\'s Membership. Both the Group remains in existence.
\n
\nThe Vizier shall inform the Registrar whenever the Membership of the Group or and the Ordinancekeepor of the Group changes. When the Vizier of the Group changes, the new Vizier shall inform the Registrar of the change.
\n
\nThe Ordinancekeepor shall keep an accurate and up to date record of the current Ordinances must be Members of the Group.
\n
\n4. The Treasury is At all times there must be a repository for Points and Currencies Vizier and has the same capabilities Ordinancekeepor for holding, trading, and spending Points and Currencies as does a Player.
\n
\n5. The Ordinances are a description of the operation of the Group.
\n
\n(*Was: 714*) every Group.
\n'),(37146,714,495807,495808,'Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group.
\n
\nA Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as the Group\'s Vizier.
\n
\n Group has is the Mintor of an associated form of Currency. The generic name of all Group Currencies is "Coins." The specific name of a Group\'s Currency is <name> Coins, where <name> is the Name of the Group.
\n
\nPlayers within the Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are known as the Group\'s Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group.
\n'),(37147,714,495808,495809,'Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group.
\n
\nA Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as the Group\'s Vizier.
\n
\nA Group is the Mintor of an associated form of Currency. The generic name of all Group Currencies is "Coins." The specific name of a Group\'s Currency is <name> Coins, where <name> is the Name of the Group.
\n
\nPlayers within the Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are known as the Group\'s Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37148,714,495809,495810,'Let there beA "Group" is an Organization of Class Group; this Class is a valid Class of Organization known as a Group. Organization.
\n
\nA Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, andAll Groups are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of its a Group\'s Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator permitted to contain any Player, but no Player is known as permitted to be part of the Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as Jurisdictions of the Group\'s Vizier. Compacts of more than one Group simultaneously.
\n
\nAEach Group is the Mintor of an associated form of Currency. The generic name of all Group Currencies is "Coins." The specific name of a Group\'s Currency is <name> Coins, where <name> is the Name of the Group. shall possess exactly one Treasury.
\n
\nPlayers within the Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are known asA Group must have exactly three Foundors, who constitute the Group\'s Membership. initial Jurisdiction. Both the Vizier Administrator and the Ordinancekeepor Executor of the a Group must be Members part of the Group. At all times there must be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group. Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Compact.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.The following definitions pertain to Groups: * Ordinances: a synonym for a Group\'s Compact. * Ordinancekeepor: a synonym for the Group\'s Administrator * Vizier: a synonym for the Group\'s Executor * Membership: the Jurisdiction of the Group\'s Compact.
\n'),(37149,714,495810,495811,'A "Group"There is an a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Class Group; Groups. Each single Organization within this Class class is a valid Class Group. An SLC associated with a Group is that Group\'s Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The set of Organization. Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is that Group\'s Membership.
\n
\nAll Groups are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of aA Group\'s Compact Membership is permitted to contain any Player, but no Player who is permitted to be part of the Jurisdictions of the Compacts not a Member of more than one Group simultaneously. any other Group.
\n
\nEach Group shall possess exactly one Treasury.
\n
\nAA Group must have exactly at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group\'s initial Jurisdiction. Membership. Both the Administrator Ordinancekeepor and the Executor Vizier of a Group must must, at all times, be part Members of the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Compact.
\n
\nThe following definitions pertain to Groups: * Ordinances: a synonym for a Group\'s Compact. * Ordinancekeepor: a synonym for the Group\'s Administrator * Vizier: a synonym for the Group\'s Executor * Membership: the Jurisdiction of the Group\'s Compact. Group.
\n'),(37150,714,495811,495812,'There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. An SLC associated with a Group is that Group\'s Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is that Group\'s Membership.
\n
\nA Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group.
\n
\nA Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37151,714,495812,495813,' Group. An SLC Each Group has associated with a Group is that Group\'s it an SLC called its Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is that Group\'s Membership.
\n
\nA Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group.
\n
\nA Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37152,714,495813,495814,'There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is that Group\'s Membership.
\n
\nA Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group.
\n
\nA Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n
\nEach Group is a Voting Entity.
\n'),(37153,714,495814,495815,'There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is that Group\'s Membership.
\n
\nA Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group.
\n
\nA Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n
\n Group is has a Voting Entity. Legislative Status.
\n'),(37154,714,495815,495816,'ThereA Group is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single an Organization within this class is a Group. Each Group has associated with it an associated SLC called its Ordinances. A Group\'s The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The its Vizier, and the set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s its SLC is that Group\'s its Membership.
\n
\n Membership is permitted to may contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. Group. Initially, the Group\'s Membership must contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves.
\n
\nA Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.
\n
\nEachEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n
\nEach Group has Authority and a Legislative Status.
\n'),(37155,714,495816,495817,' Ordinances. The The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership.
\n
\n Group. Initially, Initially, the Group\'s Membership must contain at least three Foundors. The The Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves.
\n
\n Mint Authority and Authority.
\n
\nA Group\'s Voting Power on a Legislative Status. Democratic Proposal is as follows:
\n
\n(a) A Group containing fewer than three Members: zero; (b) A Group containing at least three Members: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements it possesses, with a maximum of three.
\n'),(37156,714,495817,495818,'A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership.
\n
\nA Group\'s Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. Initially, the Group\'s Membership must contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n
\nA Group\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:
\n
\n three Members: members: zero; (b) A Group containing at least three Members: one plus members: the number of Voting Entitlements it possesses, with a maximum Players divided by the number of three. Groups with at least three members, rounded down.
\n'),(37157,714,495818,495819,'A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership.
\n
\nA Group\'s Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. Initially, the Group\'s Membership must contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves.
\n
\nEach Group has Mint Authority.
\n
\nA Group\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:
\n
\n(a) A Group containing fewer than three members: zero; (b) A Group containing at least three members: the number of Players divided by the number of Groups with at least three members, rounded down.
\n'),(37158,716,404675,404693,' if Executed, submitted, if any of its signatories is a Member of another Group at the time of its Execution. submission.
\n'),(37159,717,495820,495821,' all Public Organizations in the Public Forum. Forum. This report shall contain:
\n
\nThis report shall contain: i)i) The Name and Class class of each Public Organization. ii) The Players within identities of the Jurisdiction Administrator and Executor of each Public Organization\'s Compact. Organization. iii) The identity of Players within the Administrator Jurisdiction of each Public Organization. Organization\'s SLC. iv) The identity of the Executor Maintainer of each Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation of any Organization, the Notary shall publish, in the Public Organization which has Treasuries. Forum, the above information for that Organization.
\n'),(37160,717,495821,495822,'Not less than once each Nomic Week, the Notary must post a report of all Organizations in the Public Forum. This report shall contain:The Notary\'s Report includes:
\n
\ni) The Name and class of each Organization. ii) The identities of the Administrator and Executor of each Organization. iii) The Players within the Jurisdiction of each Organization\'s SLC. iv) The identity of the Maintainer of each Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation of any Organization, the Notary shall publish, in the Public Forum, the above information for that Organization.
\n'),(37161,718,495823,495824,' Player may resign from who is a Group Member of which e is a Member, at any time, by sending such Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Compact when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message.
\n
\nThis Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Vizier. This rule takes precedence over all Compact by other means specified by the Rules concerning Groups. or the Ordinances of that Group.
\n'),(37162,718,495824,495825,' Group\'s Compact Ordinances when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message.
\n
\n Group\'s Compact Ordinances by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.
\n'),(37163,718,495825,495827,''),(37164,718,495827,404678,'A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Ordinances when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message.
\n
\nThis Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Ordinances by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37165,718,404678,495826,'A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Ordinances when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message.
\n
\nThis Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Ordinances by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.
\n
\n(unattributed)This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37166,718,495826,495828,'A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Ordinances when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message.
\n
\nThis Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Ordinances by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37167,719,495829,495830,' Player not affiliated with any Group may become a Member shall be added to the Membership of a Group at any time after creation of the Group, subject to the following restrictions: only when:
\n
\ni) Membership procedures ina) the Ordinances are void if they conflict with the Rules. ii) No Player shall become to be added is not already a Member of a another Group; b) the Player to be added has sent the Vizier of the Group without eir sending in question a request for Membership message requesting to be added to the Vizier Membership of that Group. iii) A Player may never be a Member Group; and c) the addition of more than one Group.
\n
\nOther Rules, that Player to that Group\'s Membership is otherwise permitted by that Group\'s Ordinances and the Ordinances, may Provide additional Restrictions on Membership. Rules.
\n'),(37168,719,495830,404676,''),(37169,719,404676,495831,'A Player shall be added to the Membership of a Group only when:
\n
\na) the Player to be added is not already a Member of another Group; b) the Player to be added has sent the Vizier of the Group in question a message requesting to be added to the Membership of that Group; and c) the addition of that Player to that Group\'s Membership is otherwise permitted by that Group\'s Ordinances and the Rules.
\n'),(37170,721,495832,495833,'All MembersNo Member of a any Group must obey the Ordinances is bound to observe any Ordinance or set of that Group at all times, so long as the Ordinances do not that conflict with the Rules.
\n
\n may specify: specify the following:
\n
\n1. how the Ordinances of that Group may be changed, or that they may not be changed. If the Ordinances do not so specify, then the Ordinances shall be changed only upon unanimous agreement of all Members of that Group.
\n
\n2. thei) The Vizier of the Group, so long as the Vizier is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances of a Group do not so specify, the Vizier shall be the Player whose Application for that Group was received first by the Registrar, Notary, if e is still a Member of that Group.
\n
\n3. the ii) The Ordinancekeepor of the Group, so long as the Ordinancekeepor is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances do not so specify, then the Vizier of that Group shall also be its Ordinancekeepor.
\n
\n4. How the Points or Currencies in the Group\'s Treasury shall be spent, so long as it does not conflict with the Rules. A Group may spend Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player. When Points or Currencies are to be spent from the Group\'s Treasury, the Vizier of that Group shall inform the Scorekeepor or Recordkeepor for the Currency, as is appropriate.
\n
\n5. How iii) How the Members of the Group shall determine the manner in which the Group shall cast its Group votes. If the Ordinances do not so specify, the Group is prohibited from casting Group votes. The Group is also prohibited from casting any votes on a Proposal if it was not in existence at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal, or if it has less than three Members. The Group\'s Vizier is responsible for informing the Assessor of how the Group votes on a Proposal.
\n'),(37171,721,495833,495834,'No MemberUnless the Ordinances of any a Group is bound to observe any Ordinance or set specify otherwise, the Vizier of Ordinances a Group shall be that conflict with Founder of the Rules. Group whose Application was received first by the Notary. If this person is no longer a Member of the Group, then the Group shall be dissolved.
\n
\nTheUnless the Ordinances of a Group may specify otherwise, the following: Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n
\ni) The Vizier of the Group, so long as the Vizier is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances ofIf a given Group do not so specify, the Vizier shall be the Player whose Application for that Group was received first by the Notary, if e is still a Member of that Group. ii) The Ordinancekeepor of the Group, so long as the Ordinancekeepor is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances do not so specify, Voting Entity, then the Vizier of that Group it shall also be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinancekeepor. iii) How Ordinances. If the Members Ordinances of the Group shall determine the manner in which do not specify how the Group shall cast its Group votes. If the Ordinances do Vote(s), it may not so specify, the Group is prohibited from casting Group votes. The do so.
\n
\nA Group is also prohibited from casting any votes not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it was did not in existence exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal, or if it has less Proposal.
\n
\nA Group with fewer than three Members. The Group\'s Members is not entitled to cast Votes.
\n
\nThe Vizier of a Group is responsible for informing to communicate the Assessor of how Group\'s Votes to the Group votes on a Proposal. Assessor.
\n'),(37172,721,495834,495835,'Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, theThe Vizier of a Group shall be that Founder of whoever the Ordinances of that Group whose specify; or if the Ordinances are silent, the Player who authored the Application to Create that Group (if the Group was received first not created by the Notary. If Execution of a Application to Create a Group, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). In any of these cases, if this person Player is no longer a Member of the Group, then Group or is no longer a Player, the Group shall be dissolved.
\n
\nUnless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n
\nIf a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so.
\n
\nA Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\nA Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes.
\n
\nThe Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s Votes to the Assessor.
\n'),(37173,721,495835,495836,' Group specify; or if specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who authored the Application to Create ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not created by the Execution of a Application to Create a Group, ACO, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). In any of these cases, if this Player is no longer A Group\'s Vizier must be a Member of the Group or is no longer a Player, the Group shall be dissolved. that Group.
\n
\nUnless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n
\nIf a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so.
\n
\nA Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\nA Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes.
\n
\nThe Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s Votes to the Assessor.
\n'),(37174,721,495836,495838,''),(37175,721,495838,495839,' the Vizier shall be the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group (if Group, if e is still a Member of that Group. If the Group was not created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who Vizier shall be whoever was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). A Group\'s created.
\n
\nIf the Vizier must be thus specified is not a Member of that Group. the Group, the Group shall be dissolved.
\n
\nUnless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n
\nIf a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so.
\n
\nA Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\nA Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes.
\n
\nThe Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s Votes to the Assessor.
\n'),(37176,721,495839,495840,' of a an ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created.
\n
\nIf the Vizier thus specified is not a Member of the Group, the Group shall be dissolved.
\n
\nUnless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n'),(37177,721,495840,404677,'The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Vizier shall be the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group, if e is still a Member of that Group. If the Group was not created by the Execution of an ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created.
\n
\nIf the Vizier thus specified is not a Member of the Group, the Group shall be dissolved.
\n
\nUnless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37178,721,404677,495837,' the Vizier shall be the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group, if e is still a Member of that Group. If Group (if the Group was not created by the Execution of an a ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created.
\n
\nIf the created). A Group\'s Vizier thus specified is not must be a Member of the Group, the Group shall be dissolved. that Group.
\n
\nUnless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n
\n(unattributed)If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so.
\n
\nA Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\nA Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes.
\n
\nThe Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s Votes to the Assessor.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37179,721,495837,495841,'The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). A Group\'s Vizier must be a Member of that Group.
\n
\nUnless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.
\n
\nIf a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so.
\n
\nA Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\nA Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes.
\n
\nThe Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s Votes to the Assessor.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37180,724,495842,495843,'The Winner isA Player Wins the first Game if e is an Active Voter to achieve sufficiently many Points. The minimum Voter, and e possesses a number of Points required for Player X greater than or equal to Win is 10*N*(1+G/6), where N is the number of Players currently registered in the Game, and G Players times eir handicap factor times ten.
\n
\nA Player\'s handicap factor is equal to one, plus the number of Games which that Player X has already won. The value (1+G/6) is known as the "Handicap Factor". If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, then all such Voters Win. previously won divided by six.
\n'),(37181,725,495844,495845,'Let there be for each Player one Currency called X Stock, where X is the name of the Player.
\n
\nThe Dividend on Stock X shall be 2 Points or 5% of the Points of Player X on Friday Noon GMT (whatever is more). The Dividend shall be transfered on Friday Noon GMT to the Player (or Players) who holds Stock X.
\n
\nAt the passing of this Proposal the Bank has possession of all Stocks. During the following week the Banker shall collect the bids in Marks. Those bids have to be made by the Players (either alone or acting together on the same Stock) in a message to the server. No bid shall be made, which can not be covered by the Marks in he bidders Bank account (to be verified by the Banker.)
\n
\nAfter one week each of the Stocks shall be transfered from the Bank to the highest bidder. If two or more bids for Stock X are exactly equal, the Stock shall go to player X (if one of the highest bidders), or to the Player with the lowest score.
\n
\nIf a given Stock X is bought by Player X, the Marks of the bid shall be transfered from Player X to the Bank. If a given Stock X is bought by another Player (or Players) then Player X, the Marks of the bid shall go from this Player(s) to Player X.
\n
\n each Player. Player. (*Was: 725*)
\n'),(37182,726,495846,495848,' the average median of the number of Points held by all Active Players, excluding those Players with negative Point holdings, at the moment e entered the Game. If there are no Active Players who possess a non-negative number of Points, the new Player shall instead receive zero Points. Players.
\n'),(37183,726,495848,495849,'When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank a number of Points equal to the median of the number of Points held by all Active Players.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers which occur under this Rule.
\n'),(37184,726,495849,495847,' the median average of the number of Points held by all Active Players. Players, excluding those Players with negative Point holdings, at the moment e entered the Game. If there are no Active Players who possess a non-negative number of Points, the new Player shall instead receive zero Points.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall detect and reportThis Rule defers to all transfers other Rules which occur under do not contain this Rule. sentence.
\n'),(37185,732,495850,495851,'At the end of each game let each Player that did not win have eir points be converted to Marks in a ratio of 50 points to 1 Mark. The winner\'s points shall be taken away and e shall not receive any Mark\'s compensation for eis points.
\n
\n the Ruleset Ruleset (*Was: 732*)
\n'),(37186,750,495853,495856,'Whenever a ProposalA Rule\'s Amendment Number is Passed which Amends equal to the number of times a Rule, Rule having that Rule shall also be Amended as follows. 1. If Number has been amended. The default Amendment Number is zero; this is the last line of text value of a Rule\'s Amendment Number when the Rule begins with \'(*\' is Created, and ends with \'*)\' then the characters \'/@\' shall be inserted immediately before the final \'*)\'. 2. If it is the last line of text value of the Amendment Number of every Rule does not begin with \'(*\' and end with \'*)\' then unless it is specified by the following line of text Rules to be otherwise.
\n
\nA Rule\'s Amendment Number shall be displayed in Official copies of the Ruleset, appended to the text of the Rule: \'(*Was: @*)\'. 3. After clauses 1. Rule Number, and 2. above have been applied, the \'@\' which appears in the last line of text of separated by a forward slash. Responsibility is given to the Rule shall Rulekeepor to accurately update Amendment Numbers.
\n
\nAmendment Numbers may be replaced with the Number used for Official purposes and in Official documents to distinguish between old versions of the a Rule which was Amended by and the Amending Proposal. Rule\'s current text.
\n'),(37187,750,495856,495854,'A Rule\'sLet there be a number known as the Amendment Number Index, which is appended to a Rule\'s Number, separated by a forward slash, and which is equal to the number of times a Rule having with that Rule Number has been amended. Amended. The default Amendment Number Index is zero; this is the value of a Rule\'s Amendment Number Index when the Rule is Created, and it is the value of the Amendment Number Index of every Rule unless it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise.
\n
\nA Rule\'sIf the Amendment Number Index of a Rule is zero, the Amendment Index need not be displayed with the text of the Rule. Otherwise, the Amendment Index shall be displayed in Official copies of the Ruleset, appended to along with the Rule Number, Number and separated by a forward slash. Responsibility text of the Rule. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update the Amendment Numbers. Index.
\n
\nAmendment NumbersIn addition, when a Rule is Amended, the Rulekeepor shall append to the text of the Rule an annotation giving the number of the Amendment, the Number of the Proposal which Amended the Rule, and the date on which this Proposal passed.
\n
\nAmendment Indices may be used for Official purposes and in Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a Rule and the Rule\'s current text.
\n'),(37188,750,495854,495855,'Let there be a number known as the Amendment Index, which is appended to a Rule\'s Number, separated by a forward slash, and which is equal to the number of times a Rule with that Number has been Amended. The default Amendment Index is zero; this is the value of a Rule\'s Amendment Index when the Rule is Created, and it is the value of the Amendment Index of every Rule unless it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise.
\n
\nIf the Amendment Index of a Rule is zero, the Amendment Index need not be displayed with the text of the Rule. Otherwise, the Amendment Index shall be displayed in Official copies of the Ruleset, along with the Number and text of the Rule. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update the Amendment Index.
\n
\nIn addition, when a Rule is Amended, the Rulekeepor shall append to the text of the Rule an annotation giving the number of the Amendment, the Number of the Proposal which Amended the Rule, and the date on which this Proposal passed.
\n
\n current text. text. (*Was: 750*)
\n'),(37189,750,495855,495857,'Let there be a number known as the Amendment Index, which is appended to a Rule\'s Number, separated by a forward slash, and which is equal to the number of times a Rule with that Number has been Amended. The default Amendment Index is zero; this is the value of a Rule\'s Amendment Index when the Rule is Created, and it is the value of the Amendment Index of every Rule unless it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise.
\n
\nIf the Amendment Index of a Rule is zero, the Amendment Index need not be displayed with the text of the Rule. Otherwise, the Amendment Index shall be displayed in Official copies of the Ruleset, along with the Number and text of the Rule. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update the Amendment Index.
\n
\nIn addition, when a Rule is Amended, the Rulekeepor shall append to the text of the Rule an annotation giving the number of the Amendment, the Number of the Proposal which Amended the Rule, and the date on which this Proposal passed.
\n
\nAmendment Indices may be used for Official purposes and in Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a Rule and the Rule\'s current text. (*Was: 750*)
\n'),(37190,754,404389,405204,'Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all formsFreedom of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. A Player shall not be penalised speech being essential for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words healthy functioning of another Player, or other reference. any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\nExcept when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any mathematical term in the Rules(1) No Player shall be construed to have its standard mathematical meaning. In particular, "number" shall mean "real number". prohibited from participating in the Fora.
\n
\nThis(2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another reference.
\n
\nRegularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(3) 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.
\n
\n(4) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. In particular, the term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number".
\n
\n(5) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those contexts.
\n
\n(6) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language meaning.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other Rule rules which specifies dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(37191,754,405204,405694,'Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(1) No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.
\n
\n(2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another reference.
\n
\nRegularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(3)(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.
\n
\n(4)(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. In particular, the term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number". rules.
\n
\n(5)(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those contexts.
\n
\n(6)(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language meaning.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(37192,754,405694,496706,'Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n Rules shall be interpreted as having by default has that meaning, as shall do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.
\n
\n Rule, shall be interpreted as having by default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
\n
\n Rule shall be interpreted as having by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(37193,754,496706,496944,'Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n that meaning, meaning when used in any Rule of equal or lesser power, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n ordinary-language meaning. meaning. In determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term, definitions contained in lower-powered Rules, followed by definitions used in contracts or other Agoran legal documents, SHOULD be used for guidance.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(37194,754,496944,497338,'Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that meaning when used in any Rule of equal or lesser power, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.
\n
\nThe following clauses, where X and Y are both nouns or noun phrases, SHOULD be interpreted as "X is/are defined as Y":
\n
\na) "X is/are Y" b) "Y is/are known as X"
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule by default has its ordinary-language meaning. In determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term, definitions contained in lower-powered Rules, followed by definitions used in contracts or other Agoran legal documents, SHOULD be used for guidance.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar.
\n'),(37195,781,495858,495861,' a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For for Judgement alleging alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology. This Injunction may also include a list Apology within 72 hours of up to ten Prescribed Words. By the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\nBy a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing con-taining all of the Prescribed Words, explaining Words (if any were prescribed) ex-plaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, and posted self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in the Public Forum. Within 48 hours such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of the posting up to ten Prescribed Words of this Formal Apology, the Squealer must either submit a Proposal Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that must include the Ninny\'s Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other Player may submit such a Proposal, and Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Squealer may submit only one. If a Proposal Ninny fails to accept meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\nThe Player who called the Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject initial CFJ has the Apology passes, then duty to report to the Ninny loses 5 Points. Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.
\n'),(37196,781,495861,495862,'If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\n words, con-taining containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) ex-plaining explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\nThe Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.
\n'),(37197,781,495862,495863,' Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\nBy a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\nThe Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.
\n'),(37198,781,495863,495865,'If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\nBy a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\n the Tabulator Herald any Blots gained through this rule. rule.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37199,781,495865,495866,'If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\nBy a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\nThe Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Herald any Blots gained through this rule.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37200,781,495866,495868,''),(37201,781,495868,495869,'IfUpon a Call for Judgement alleges judicial finding that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit Judge so finding shall Order that Player to the Public Forum a Formal Apology submit, within 72 hours of hours, a Formal Apology. However, when the publication action (or failure to act) is subject to penalties by virtue of Judgement, unless that Judgement being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, the Order is successfully appealed within 72 hours. optional and may be issued at the Judge\'s discretion.
\n
\nBy aA Formal Apology is meant shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of to be published by the Ninny in the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) Public Forum, explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nAThe Judge deciding TRUE in issuing such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, and ordering that (to be chosen by the Ninny\'s Formal Apology Judge) which must include be included in the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf Formal Apology. If the Ninny fails Judge elects to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\nThe Player who called the initial CFJ has include Prescribed Words, all of the duty to report to Words required must appear within the Herald any Blots gained through this rule. Formal Apology.
\n'),(37202,781,495869,495870,'Upon a judicial finding that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, the Judge so finding shall Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. However, when the action (or failure to act) is subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, the Order is optional and may be issued at the Judge\'s discretion.
\n
\n the Ninny in the Public Forum, Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nThe Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology.
\n'),(37203,781,495870,495871,'UponIf a judicial finding Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, Rules is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding shall may Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. However, when If the Ninny is Ready and the action (or act or failure to act) act is not subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then the Judge must issue such an Order is optional and may be issued at as soon as possible after the Clerk of the Courts publishes the Judge\'s discretion. judgement.
\n
\nA Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nThe Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology.
\n'),(37204,781,495871,495872,'If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement.
\n
\nA Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nThe Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology.
\n
\nThe failure to abide by an Order to Submit a Formal Apology is the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, to be reported by the Judge who issued the original Order.
\n'),(37205,781,495872,495873,' a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges that a Player (herein called (hereafter the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules is judged TRUE, convicted of a Crime, then instead of executing Sentencing Orders, the Judge so finding may (Without Objection) Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be publish a Crime or an Infraction, then the Judge must issue such Formal Apology. Such an Order is known as soon as possible after the Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement. an Order to Apologize.
\n
\n Apology shall consist of a letter of must be at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining and must explain the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of which must appear in the Formal Apology.
\n
\nThe Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of upFailure to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology.
\n
\nThe failure to abide by obey an Order to Submit a Formal Apology Apologize within 72 hours is the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, Shamelessness, to be reported by the Judge who issued the original Order.
\n'),(37206,781,495873,495874,'IfA sentencing order may require a Player defendant (hereafter the Ninny) is convicted of a Crime, then instead of executing Sentencing Orders, the Judge may (Without Objection) Order the Ninny to publish a Formal Apology. Such an Order is known as an Order to Apologize. Apology.
\n
\nA Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of which must appear in the Formal Apology.
\n
\nFailure toA defendant must obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours is the Class 3 Infraction of Shamelessness, to be reported by the Judge who issued the Order. its execution.
\n'),(37207,781,495874,495859,'A sentencing order may requireIf a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a defendant (hereafter Call For Judgement alleging that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to publish act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny submit a Formal Apology.
\n
\nA This Injunction may also include a list of up to ten Prescribed Words. By a Formal Apology must be is meant a letter of at least 200 words, and must explain containing all of the Prescribed Words, explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. Furthermore, self-improvement, and posted in the Order to Apologize may include up to ten Prescribed Words Public Forum within 72 hours of the Judge\'s choice, all posting of which must appear in the Formal Apology.
\n
\nA defendant must obey an Order Injunction to Apologize within the Public Forum. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall lose 10 points. Within 72 hours of its execution. the posting of this Formal Apology, the Squealer must either submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other Player may submit such a Proposal, and the Squealer may submit only one. If a Proposal to accept the Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject the Apology passes, then the Ninny loses 5 Points.
\n'),(37208,781,495859,495860,' 5 Points. Points. (*Was: 781*)
\n'),(37209,781,495860,495864,' a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For for Judgement alleging alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology. This Injunction may also include a list Apology within 72 hours of up to ten Prescribed Words. By the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\nBy a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words, Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, and posted self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in the Public Forum within 72 hours such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of the posting up to ten Prescribed Words of the Injunction to Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Public Forum. If Ninny\'s Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall lose 10 points. Within 72 hours of the posting of this Formal Apology, the Squealer must either submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other gain 3 Blots.
\n
\nThe Player may submit such a Proposal, and who called the Squealer may submit only one. If a Proposal to accept initial CFJ has the Apology fails, or if a Proposal duty to report to reject the Apology passes, then the Ninny loses 5 Points. (*Was: 781*) Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37210,781,495864,495867,'If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\nBy a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\n the Tabulator Herald any Blots gained through this rule.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37211,781,495867,495875,'If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.
\n
\nBy a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nA Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words.
\n
\nIf the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.
\n
\nThe Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Herald any Blots gained through this rule.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37212,786,404655,405535,' the Office of Speaker-Elect is to rules require that a conclave be filled according to convened, and no competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as possible, the Order Associate Director of Succession, Personnel (ADoP) shall announce that order is defined e convenes a conclave, specifying a collection of cardinals and indicating that those cardinals are to be: convene a conclave. Provided that:
\n
\nthe Promotor(a) the Registrar rules require that the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration conclave be convened;
\n
\nexcept that neither the Speaker nor any Unready Player appears in the Order. The Order of Succession(b) no competing conclave is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. currently convened; and
\n
\nIf there(c) the collection consists of qualified cardinals,
\n
\nthen as of such an announcement, a conclave consisting of the qualified cardinals is ever no Electee convened. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave unless the Office rules specify otherwise.
\n
\nThe first seven days following the convening of Speaker-Elect, a conclave constitute the posturing period. During the Office posturing period, a qualified cardinal may announce eir intent to become a pope. Any other player may publicly support or revoke support for a cardinal\'s claim until the posturing period ends.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the posturing period ends, the ADoP shall be held by perform the Active Player highest following actions in order:
\n
\n(a) E shall determine the cardinal club, which is the order collection of succession who qualified cardinals with positive support from the populace and at least as much unwithdrawn support as any other qualified cardinal.
\n
\n(b) If the cardinal club has not publicly declined since there no members, e shall announce this fact, and announce the conclave was last an Electee inconclusive.
\n
\n(c) If the cardinal club has at least one member, e shall select one of its members to be pope, then publish the Office list of Speaker-Elect. If there members of the cardinal club, indicating which member is only one Active Player to become a pope. That member becomes a pope as of this announcement.
\n
\nThe ADoP\'s announcement in (b) or (c) concludes the order conclave. If the conclave was inconclusive, eir announcement of succession who this fact shall constitute a valid call to conclave. If the conclave has not declined, that Player concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened, any player may not decline. announce that it is inconclusive; upon such an announcement, the conclave shall conclude with an inconclusive result, and a conclave must be convened.
\n
\nIf the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that conclave.
\n'),(37213,786,405535,405651,' be convened, convened and no competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall announce that e convenes convene a conclave, conclave by announcement, specifying a the collection of cardinals and indicating that those cardinals are to convene qualified cardinals. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave. Provided that: conclave unless the rules specify otherwise.
\n
\n(a)The announcement is ineffective if the rules require ADoP is not required to convene a conclave or eir announcement does not list all and only the cardinals qualified for that conclave. However, if errors are not announced until after 7 days after the conclave be convened; concludes, the results shall stand.
\n
\n(b) no competingThe convening of a conclave initiates an Agoran Decision to determine the Pope, a decision in which quorum is currently convened; and zero, the voting period is 7 days, all Players are eligible voters, all qualified cardinals are valid options as long as they remain qualified cardinals, and the ADoP has the privilege of resolving ties as for elections.
\n
\n(c) the collection consistsThe ADoP\'s announcement of qualified cardinals, the cardinal chosen by Agora makes that cardinal the pope and concludes the conclave.
\n
\nthen as of such an announcement, a conclave consisting of the qualified cardinals is convened. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave unless the rules specify otherwise.
\n
\nThe first seven days following the convening of a conclave constitute the posturing period. During the posturing period, a qualifiedIf no cardinal may announce eir intent to become a pope. Any other player may publicly support or revoke support for a cardinal\'s claim until the posturing period ends.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the posturing period ends, be legally chosen by Agora, the ADoP shall perform the following actions in order:
\n
\n(a) E shall determine the cardinal club, which is the collection of qualified cardinals with positive support from the populace and at least as much unwithdrawn support as any other qualified cardinal.
\n
\n(b) If the cardinal club has no members, e shall announce this fact, so announce, and announce the conclave was inconclusive.
\n
\n(c) If the cardinal club has at least one member, e shall select one of its members to be pope, then publish the list of members of the cardinal club, indicating which member is to become a pope. That member becomes a pope as of this announcement.
\n
\nThe ADoP\'s announcement in (b) or (c) concludes the conclave. If the conclave was inconclusive, eir announcement of this fact shall constitute as a valid call to conclave. cliffhanger. If the a conclave has not concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened, any player may announce that it is inconclusive; upon such an announcement, the conclave shall conclude with an inconclusive result, and thus conclude it as a cliffhanger. When an conclave concludes as a cliffhanger, this canon calls for a consecutive conclave must to be convened. convened to calculate the correct cardinal.
\n
\nIf the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that conclave.
\n'),(37214,789,495876,495877,'When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules.
\n
\n is amended, repealed, or transmuted; changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set.
\n'),(37215,789,495877,495878,''),(37216,789,495878,495879,'When a player makes aA CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit way must be accompanied by a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with Rules, assembled by the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate Caller, which includes the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. being interpreted.
\n
\nThe annotation shall remain only until one ofIf the Judge finds this CFJ\'s Statement TRUE, e is permitted to issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rules Rule in question with that Statement and the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, Rules. This annotation, while it exists, shall guide the application of that Rule.
\n
\nIfThe annotation is removed once any change occurs in a Rule from the list of relevant Rules.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that the circumstances which led leading to the Judgement no longer prevail and prevail, rendering the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, inapplicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. is removed.
\n'),(37217,789,495879,495880,'A CFJ allegingThe Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way must be accompanied by a list of relevant Rules, assembled by the Caller, way, which includes is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule being interpreted. in question with the Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.
\n
\nIf the Judge finds this CFJ\'s Statement TRUE, eThe Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule is permitted repealed, or when required to issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor do so by a valid Order. Annotations to annotate the a Rule may not be modified in question with that Statement and the list of relevant Rules. This annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that any way except as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nThe annotation is removed once any change occurs in a Rule from the list of relevant Rules.
\n
\nIfIf a Player believes that the circumstances leading to the Judgement an annotation is no longer prevail, rendering the annotation inapplicable, pertinent, e may submit a file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to that effect. Vacate the Order of Annotation. If it such a Motion is Judged TRUE, granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation is removed. in question.
\n'),(37218,789,495880,495881,'The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.
\n
\n is repealed, or when repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order. Annotations Order; or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation in question.
\n'),(37219,789,495881,404561,''),(37220,789,404561,405714,''),(37221,789,405714,405811,' judged TRUE, TRUE or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with accordingly. If the CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement of that the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation in question.
\n'),(37222,789,405811,495884,'The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If the CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement of the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation in question.
\n'),(37223,790,404443,405395,' after
\n
\na) an Office ceases to have an Electee (or Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee), the Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;
\n
\nthe designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. Rules. This requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.
\n
\nThe designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker.
\n'),(37224,790,405395,405509,'As soon as possible after
\n
\na) an Office ceases to have an Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;
\n
\nthe designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.
\n
\n the Assistant Associate Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Assistant Associate Director of Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker.
\n'),(37225,790,405509,405564,'As soon as possible afterAn election to fill an office must be held whenever:
\n
\na) an Office(a) the office ceases to have an Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale; electee;
\n
\nthe designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This requirement is cancelled if(b) the Office comes to have office is created without installing an Electee. electee; or
\n
\nThe designated conductor of Office Elections(c) an election to fill that office fails, and no election for that office is the Associate Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question progress.
\n
\nAs long as an election to fill an office is in progress, no other election to fill that of Associate Director of Personnel; office may be initiated. An election is in progress from the time it is initiated until it is resolved.
\n
\nIf a player required to initiate an election fails to do so as soon as possible, then any player may announce that case, the designated conductor election has failed. Provided that this assertion is indeed correct, then upon this announcement the Speaker. election fails.
\n'),(37226,805,495886,495891,' perform this that action before performing within a week, and no later than any other actions which have a less strictly defined action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirement. However, email correspondence requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10 point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\n Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate define a less stringent ordering requirement later latest time for the performance of these actions. actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*)
\n'),(37227,805,495891,495892,' shall result at a minimum in the incursion of be a 10 point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties. However, Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*)
\n'),(37228,805,495892,495893,' possible", then:
\n
\n(i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office subsequently requires em to perform;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n(ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure perform which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\nFailure to observe these time requirements shall be is a Class D Crime. However, However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*)
\n'),(37229,805,495893,495894,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\n(i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office subsequently requires em to perform;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n(ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\nFailure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\n On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) Hold.
\n'),(37230,805,495894,495895,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\n no later earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office subsequently already requires em to perform; perform as soon as possible;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n no later earlier than any other action e is subsequently already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\nFailure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold.
\n'),(37231,805,495895,495896,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\n(i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n(ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\nFailure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\n On Hold. Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties.
\n'),(37232,805,495896,495897,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\n(i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n(ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\nFailureA Player who fails to observe these time requirements is commits the Crime of Tardiness, a Class D Crime. However, However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties.
\n'),(37233,805,495897,495898,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\n(i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n(ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\n the Crime the Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the same as that for a Class D Crime. However, activity All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.
\n
\nActivity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties.
\n'),(37234,805,495898,495899,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\n(i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n(ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\n the the Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.
\n
\nActivity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties.
\n'),(37235,805,495899,495900,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\n(i) ifif the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible;
\n
\notherwise,
\n
\n(ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\nA Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.
\n
\nActivity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties.
\n'),(37236,805,495900,495901,'Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then:
\n
\nif the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible;
\n
\notherwise, e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties.
\n
\n the Class 2 Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the same as that for a Class D Crime. All Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.
\n
\nActivity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\n latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. times.
\n
\nThis Rule defers toOther Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which may impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties. Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players.
\n'),(37237,805,495901,495902,' perform a certain an action "as soon as possible", then: then e is required to perform the action within a week.
\n
\nif the action is one that aA Player is required who fails to perform in observe this requirement commits the course Class 1 Infraction of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required Tardiness. All Players are authorized to perform the action within a week, detect and no earlier than any other action which report the performance commission of the duties Infraction of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; Tardiness.
\n
\notherwise, e is requiredThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to perform as be performed "as soon as possible which is not an action possible" may be performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. without incurring a penalty.
\n
\nA Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the Class 2 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.
\n
\nActivity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, andOther Rules may be conducted at any time.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements grant extensions of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions penalty-free period to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed Inactive Players without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times.
\n
\nOther Rules may impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players. conflicting with this Rule.
\n'),(37238,805,495902,495903,'Whenever a Player is required to perform an action "as soon as possible", then e is required to perform the action within a week.
\n
\nA Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a penalty.
\n
\n to Inactive non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.
\n'),(37239,805,495903,495904,'Whenever a Player is requiredA requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible", then e possible" is required a requirement to perform the action within a week.
\n
\nAIf a Player who fails to observe this requirement such a requirement, and no other Rule defines a penalty for the failure, then the Player commits the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. Tardiness, which may be reported by any Player.
\n
\n not deprive prevent late actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines from taking effect, but merely penalizes the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a penalty. Player for being late.
\n
\nOther Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.
\n'),(37240,805,495904,495905,'A requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the action within a week.The following terms are defined:
\n
\nIf a Player fails to observe such a requirement, and no other Rule defines a penalty for- Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the failure, then first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Player commits Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Class 1 Infraction Agoran month of Tardiness, which may be reported by any Player. January begins.
\n
\nThis Rule does not prevent late actions from taking effect, but merely penalizes- A requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the Player for being late. action within seven days.
\n
\nOther Rules may grant extensions of- The term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number".
\n
\n- The term "random" shall mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the penalty-free period possible outcomes is reasonably close to non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule. that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n'),(37241,805,495905,495906,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n- Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.(a) The term "number" shall mean "real number".
\n
\n- A requirement to perform an action(b) The phrase "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the action within shall mean "within seven days. days".
\n
\n-(c) The term "number" "random" shall be interpreted as "real number". mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n-(d) The term "random" "paragraph" shall mean a choice drawn with subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(3) Units are considered in a tree hierarchy, interpreting the original body of text as a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes depth-first search. The root is reasonably close empty, the unbulleted units are its children, and the bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to that required nested levels of the tree).
\n
\n(4) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified. minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(e) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37242,805,495906,495907,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n(a) The term "number" shall mean "real number".
\n
\n(b) The phrase "as soon as possible" shall mean "within seven days".
\n
\n(c) The term "random" shall mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n(d) The term "paragraph" shall mean a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(3) Units are considered in a tree hierarchy, interpreting the original body Each unit of text as a depth-first search. The root is empty, the document has a level as follows. All unbulleted units are its children, and have level 1. Each bulleted unit has level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to it is nested levels of the tree). inside.
\n
\n A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between those units which has level no greater than that of the unit appearing first.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(e) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37243,805,495907,495908,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n "number" shall mean means "real number".
\n
\n possible" shall mean means "within seven days".
\n
\n "random" shall mean means a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n "paragraph" shall mean means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(e) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37244,805,495908,495909,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n(a) The term "number" means "real number".
\n
\n(b) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days".
\n
\n term "random" means a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n(d) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(e)(d) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37245,805,495909,495910,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n The term "number" phrase "as soon as possible" means "real number". "within seven days".
\n
\n The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days".
\n
\n(c) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d)(c) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37246,805,495910,495911,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n The phrase phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" means mean "within seven days".
\n
\n(b) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37247,805,495911,495887,'The following terms are defined:Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform this action before performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined time requirement. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\n(a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" mean "within seven days".
\n
\n(b) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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,This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which nominally appears at the beginning of the document. One unit is stipulate 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 less stringent ordering follows the order of the units in the document.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when requirement for the Agoran month performance of January begins. these actions.
\n'),(37248,805,495887,495889,' perform this that action before performing within a week, and no later than any other actions which have a less strictly defined action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirement. requirements is a Class C Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\n Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate define a less stringent ordering requirement later latest time for the performance of these actions. actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805*)
\n'),(37249,805,495889,495888,' perform that this action within a week, and no later than before performing any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements is actions which have a Class C Crime. less strictly defined time requirement. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\n Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define stipulate a later latest time less stringent ordering requirement for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805*)
\n'),(37250,805,495888,495890,' perform this that action before performing within a week, and no later than any other actions which have a less strictly defined action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirement. requirements is a Class C Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.
\n
\n Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate define a less stringent ordering requirement later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805*) 805/907*)
\n'),(37251,807,495913,495916,'ProposalsA Proposal may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. The permissible forms of Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals), and one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Declarations needed to propose them, shall be Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in other legislation. a Proposal.
\n
\nNRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other Proposals, andIf a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals. Upon take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with results Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as described in great as that required by the Rule or Rules that which define the form type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal in question. for which this is not true is not properly made.
\n'),(37252,807,495916,495917,'A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal.
\n
\nIf a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question.
\n
\n Proposal. Any Proposal for which If this is not true is true, then the Directive shall not properly made. take effect, even if the Proposal is adopted.
\n'),(37253,807,495917,495919,' Proposal may is permitted to contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, it takes effect, causes some change in the Game State other than changing Changing a Rule. No Directive may change shall Change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. Rule.
\n
\nIf aA Directive takes effect if and only if: (i) the Proposal containing Directives it is adopted, adopted; (ii) the Directives shall take effect in Directive is of a type specifically defined by the order that they appear in Rules; and, (iii) the Proposal, and according to Adoption Index of the Rule or Rule which define Proposal is at least the type of each minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive in question. to take effect.
\n
\nTheUnless another Rule states otherwise, the minimum Adoption Index of necessary for a Directive to take effect is 1.
\n
\nIf a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as Directives which take effect is adopted, those Directives shall take effect in the order that required by they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rules which define the type of each Directive contained in the Proposal. If this is not true, then the Directive shall not take effect, even if the Proposal is adopted. question.
\n'),(37254,807,495919,495914,'A Proposal is permitted toProposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. All proposals, except those which have one or more Directives. A Directive, if it takes effect, causes some change in of the Game State other than Changing following declarations: (Creates a Rule) (Amends a Rule) (Repeals a Rule. No Directive shall Change any Rule. Rule) (Transmutes a Rule) are Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals). However, only those NRC Proposals defined in other Rules may be proposed.
\n
\nA Directive takes effect ifNRC Proposals are Voted upon and only if: (i) the Proposal containing it is adopted; (ii) the Directive is of a type specifically defined by the Rules; and, (iii) treated exactly like other Proposals, and shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals. Upon the Adoption Index of the Proposal is at least the minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect.
\n
\nUnless another Rule states otherwise, the minimum Adoption Index necessary for a Directive to take effect is 1.
\n
\nIf a Proposal containing Directives which take effect is adopted, those Directives NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with results as described in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rules which that define the type form of each Directive the Proposal in question.
\n'),(37255,807,495914,495915,'Proposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. All proposals, except those which have one of the following declarations: (Creates a Rule) (Amends a Rule) (Repeals a Rule) (Transmutes a Rule) are Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals). However, only those NRC Proposals defined in other Rules may be proposed.
\n
\n in question. question. (*Was: 807*)
\n'),(37256,807,495915,495918,'ProposalsA Proposal may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. All proposals, except those which have one of or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the following declarations: (Creates a Rule) (Amends a Rule) (Repeals a Rule) (Transmutes Game State other than changing a Rule) are Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals). However, only Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those NRC Proposals Directives which are defined in other by the Rules may be proposed. placed in a Proposal.
\n
\nNRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other Proposals, andIf a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals. Upon take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question.
\n
\nThe Adoption Index of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with results Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as described in great as that required by the Rule or Rules that which define the form type of Directive contained in the Proposal. If this is not true, then the Directive shall not take effect, even if the Proposal in question. (*Was: 807*) is adopted.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37257,818,495920,495921,'Let there be a type of Nomic Entity called a Walrus. Walruses are not a form of Currency; they may be owned by Players or Groups, but they may not be bought, sold, traded, or owed. Walruses may be created or destroyed only in accordance with the Rules. Each Walrus is either Happy or Sad, but not both; a Happy Walrus nay never become a Sad Walrus, and a Sad Walrus may never become a Happy Walrus. It is the duty of the Registrar to keep a record of the number of Happy and/or Sad Walruses owned by each Player or Group.
\n
\nImmediately upon the passage of this Proposal the following shall take place: -for each Voter who Voted FOR both this Proposal and Proposal 819, a Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Voter who contributed at least 2 Points to each of the FOR Caches of the Vototron for both this Proposal and Proposal 819, one Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Member of PROSIRUP, one Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Player; -three Happy Walruses will be created belonging to Waggie; -three Happy Walruses will be created belonging to the Abelian Group; -for each Voter who did not Vote on either this Proposal or Proposal 819 a Sad Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Voter who Voted AGAINST or ABSTAIN on either this Proposal or Proposal 819 three Sad Walruses will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Voter who contributed at least 0.1 Point to either of the AGAINST Caches of the Vototron for this Proposal and Proposal 819, one Sad Walrus will be created and given to that Voter for each tenth of a Point spent thusly; -for each Group which Voted on either this Proposal or Proposal 819, one Walrus will be created and given to that Group for each Vote which was cast; the Walrus will be Happy if the Vote was FOR, and the Walrus will be Sad if the Vote was AGAINST or ABSTAIN.
\n
\nAt any time after the creation of at least one Walrus, if there cease to be any Walruses in existence then this Rule repeals itself and is removed from the RuleSet.
\n'),(37258,819,495922,495923,'10^(-100) seconds after this Proposal is passed into Rule, the following shall take place: -for each Happy Walrus, 5 Marks will be created and given to the Player or Group which owns that Happy Walrus; -for each Sad Walrus, the Player or Group which owns that Sad Walrus will have 50 Points subtracted from their Score or Treasury; -after the above actions have taken place, all Walruses will be destroyed; -after the above actions have taken place, this Rule repeals itself and is removed from the RuleSet.
\n'),(37259,822,495924,495928,' conscience are disallowed. For the purpose of Rule 106 or its successors, such a proposal is considered shall not to be "proposed in the proper way".
\n
\nThis take effect even if adopted, any Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(37260,822,495928,495925,' conscience shall are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not take effect even if adopted, any Rule to be "proposed in the contrary notwithstanding. proper way".
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.
\n'),(37261,822,495925,495926,'Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way".
\n
\n voted on. on. (*Was: 822*)
\n'),(37262,822,495926,495927,'Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way".
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*)
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37263,822,495927,495929,'Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way".
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*)
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37264,824,495930,495931,'Let all Players be able to buy points with eir Marks from the Bank in a ratio of 20 points to 1 Mark. Points will be received from the Point Reserve for such transactions.
\n
\nFor such a transaction to be valid the Player must communicate to the Banker that a point purchase is desired. The player must transfer only whole Mark amounts for such a transfer. The Banker will inform the Scorekeepor of transfer and the amount of points the Player is to receive from the Point Reserve. The Scorekeepor shall make the transaction public knowledge.
\n'),(37265,825,495932,495933,'Proposals may affect the game when the effect/s is based on votes or activities before the passage of said Proposal only if said Proposal was passed unanimously.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Proposals that are passed without receiving any AGAINST votes are considered to be unanimous.
\n'),(37266,833,495934,495935,'The Player who entity which paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal shall be known as the Payor for that Proposal. If a non-Player Entity paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal the Payor shall be the Executor Sponsor of that Entity. Proposal.
\n
\n the Payor for that Proposal gains Assessor shall pay out to the Sponsor a number of P-Notes equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes.
\n
\n Votes, that Payor loses the Assessor shall bill the Sponsor for a number of P-Notes equal the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes.
\n
\n the number of FOR Votes Sponsor and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Payor neither gains nor loses P-Notes as a result Proposer of this Rule.
\n
\nIf the Payor is a Proposal are not the same Player as the Player who made the Proposal, then the Player who made entity and the Proposal passes, the Assessor shall receive pay out 2 P-Notes if to the Proposal passes, Proposer. If the Sponsor and lose 1 P-Note if the Proposer of a Proposal fails. This only happens in are not the given case, same and occurs the Proposal fails, the Assessor shall bill the Proposer 1 P-Note. This is in addition to any other transfers mandated payments required by this or other Rules.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count.
\n
\n shall report the transfers execute all Payment Orders required by this Rule, and shall do so Rule no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question.
\n'),(37267,833,495935,495936,'The entity which paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal shall be knownAs soon as possible after the Sponsor beginning of that Proposal.
\n
\nAt the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, Nomic Week, the Assessor shall pay out two Voting Tokens to the Sponsor a number of P-Notes equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes.
\n
\nIf, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Assessor shall bill the Sponsor for a number of P-Notes equal the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes.
\n
\nIf the Sponsor and the Proposer of a Proposal are not the same entity and the Proposal passes, the Assessor shall pay out 2 P-Notes to the Proposer. If the Sponsor and the Proposer of a Proposal are not the same and the each Player who submitted an Interested Proposal fails, the Assessor shall bill the Proposer 1 P-Note. This is in addition to any other payments required by this or other Rules.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall execute all Payment Orders required by this Rule no later than was adopted during the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. previous Week.
\n'),(37268,833,495936,495937,' after the beginning of the Nomic Week, an Interested Proposal submitted by a Player is adopted, the Assessor shall pay out two Voting Tokens to each that Player, with the proviso that no more than one such payment shall be made to any Player who submitted an Interested Proposal which was under the authority of this Rule for adopted during Proposals distributed at the previous Week. same time.
\n'),(37269,833,495937,495938,' after an Interested Proposal submitted by a Player is adopted, the beginning of the Nomic Week, the Assessor shall pay out two Voting Tokens to that Player, with the proviso that no more than one such payment shall be made Proposal Notes to any each Player under the authority of this Rule for who submitted an Interested Proposal which was adopted Proposals distributed at during the same time. previous Week.
\n'),(37270,839,495939,495940,' Speaker ad and Officers. Messages are to be edited into a single digest post.
\n
\nThe Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them available upon request to any entity, including those Players on Hold. This Rule shall take precidence over all other Rules regarding commuication with Players on Hold.
\n'),(37271,839,495940,495941,'Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be responsible for collecting those messages which are official in nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited into a single digest post.
\n
\n take precidence precedence over all other Rules regarding commuication with Players on Hold.
\n'),(37272,839,495941,495942,'Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be responsible for collecting those messages which are official in nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited into a single digest post.
\n
\n regarding commuication communication with Players on Hold.
\n'),(37273,840,495943,495944,'Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent.
\n
\n Scamster must pay a one-time fee of loses 1 Point to the Point Reserve upon receiving the Title. This fee is not optional, and the The Patent Title may not be declined.
\n'),(37274,840,495944,495945,'Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent.
\n
\nA Scamster loses 1 Point uponUpon receiving the Title. The title, 0.01 Mark shall be transferred from the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined.
\n'),(37275,840,495945,495946,'Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent.
\n
\n title, 0.01 1 Mark shall be transferred from the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined.
\n'),(37276,840,495946,495947,' the perpretating perpetrating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent.
\n
\nUpon receiving the title, 1 Mark shall be transferred from the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined.
\n'),(37277,840,495947,495948,' "Scamster". This This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This title This Title is awarded by Proposal in the normal manner for Patent Titles, and once awarded is permanent. may never be retracted.
\n
\nUpon receivingAt the title, time the Title is awarded, 1 Mark shall be transferred from the new Scamster to the Bank. The This transfer shall be reported by the Registrar, as soon as possible after it occurs.
\n
\nThe Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined.
\n'),(37278,840,495948,495949,'Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This Title is awarded in the normal manner for Patent Titles, and may never be retracted.
\n
\nAt the time the Title is awarded, 1 Mark shall be transferred from the new Scamster to the Bank. This transfer shall be reported by the Registrar, as soon as possible after it occurs.
\n
\nThe Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined.
\n'),(37279,843,495951,495954,'NoWhen a Player may send more than PL/2 Proposals to the Speaker during any given Week. Proposals submits a Proposal, e shall lose one (1) point for each Proposal, in excess of this number are rejected two, previously submitted by that Player within the Speaker, as they are not "made in the proper manner". A 2 Point penalty past seven (7) days.
\n
\nThe Speaker is assessed by responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker for every Proposal submitted in excess shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is distributed.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this number; responsibility for enforcement is given Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker. Speaker separated by infinitesimal increments of time. (*Was: 843/936*)
\n'),(37280,843,495954,495955,'When a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose one (1) point for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player within the past seven (7) days.
\n
\nThe Speaker Promotor is responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker Promotor shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is distributed.
\n
\nForThis Rule shall have no effect on Points whenever the number of Proposals currently up for Vote plus the number of Proposals received by the Speaker but not yet distributed is not more than 12.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker Promotor separated by infinitesimal increments of time. (*Was: 843/936*)
\n'),(37281,843,495955,495956,' lose one (1) point 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player within the past seven (7) days.
\n
\n this point change transfer to the Scorekeepor, Banker, and the Promotor shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal Proposal is distributed.
\n
\nThis RuleNo Transfer shall have no effect on Points occur as a result of this Rule whenever whenever the number of Proposals currently up for Vote plus the number of Proposals received by the Speaker Promotor but not yet distributed is not more than 12.
\n
\n multiple proposals Proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Promotor separated by infinitesimal increments of time. (*Was: 843/936*) time.
\n'),(37282,843,495956,495957,'WhenWhenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player within during the past seven (7) days. current Nomic Week.
\n
\n Promotor is responsible for reporting this transfer to the Banker, and the Promotor shall detect and report it this penalty, no later than the time at which the Proposal is distributed.
\n
\nNo Transfer shall occur as a result of this Rule whenever whenever the number of Proposals currently up for Vote plus the number of Proposals received by the Promotor but not yet distributed is not more than 12.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this Rule, multiple Proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Promotor separated by infinitesimal increments of time. distributed.
\n'),(37283,843,495957,495959,' of two, five, previously submitted by that Player during the current Nomic Week.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than the time the Proposal is distributed.
\n'),(37284,843,495959,495960,' a Player Proposing Entity submits a Proposal, e it shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of five, previously submitted by that Player Proposing Entity during the current Nomic Week.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than the time the Proposal is distributed.
\n'),(37285,843,495960,495961,'Whenever a Proposing Entity submits a Proposal, it shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excessThe submission of five, previously submitted a Proposal by that a Proposing Entity during the current Nomic Week.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later that has submitted more than five Proposals within the time immediately preceding Week is an Infraction, the Proposal penalty for which is distributed. one Mil. This Infraction shall be reported by the Promotor.
\n'),(37286,843,495961,495962,' be detected and reported by the Promotor.
\n'),(37287,843,495962,495963,' is an Infraction, the Infraction of Excess Proposing, the penalty for which is one Mil. This Infraction shall be detected and reported by the Promotor.
\n'),(37288,843,495963,495964,' is one Mil. 0.5 VT. This Infraction shall be detected and reported by the Promotor.
\n'),(37289,843,495964,495952,'The submission ofWhen a player submits a Proposal to the Speaker, e shall lose 1 point for each Proposal proposed by a Proposing Entity that em which either is currently up for Vote, or has submitted more than five Proposals within been sent to the immediately preceding Week Speaker but not yet distributed.
\n
\nThe Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to the Infraction of Excess Proposing, Scorekeepor, and the penalty for Speaker shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is 0.5 VT. This Infraction distributed.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be detected and reported considered to have been sent to the Speaker separated by infinitesimal increments of time.
\n
\nIf at any time after the adoption of this Rule there exists a Nomic entity known as the Point Sucker: --the "1 point" in the first paragraph shall be amended to "0.1 Marks" --the "Scorekeepor" in the Promotor. second paragraph shall be amended to "Banker" --this paragraph shall then be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37290,843,495952,495953,'When a player submits a Proposal to the Speaker, e shall lose 1 point for each Proposal proposed by em which either is currently up for Vote, or has been sent to the Speaker but not yet distributed.
\n
\nThe Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is distributed.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker separated by infinitesimal increments of time.
\n
\n this Rule. Rule. (*Was: 843*)
\n'),(37291,843,495953,495958,'WhenWhenever a player Player submits a Proposal to the Speaker, Proposal, e shall lose 1 point Mark for each Proposal proposed Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by em which either is currently up for Vote, or has been sent to that Player during the Speaker but not yet distributed. current Nomic Week.
\n
\nThe Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker Promotor shall detect and report it this penalty, no later than the time at which the proposal Proposal is distributed.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker separated by infinitesimal increments of time.
\n
\nIf at any time after the adoption of this Rule there exists a Nomic entity known as the Point Sucker: --the "1 point" in the first paragraph shall be amended to "0.1 Marks" --the "Scorekeepor" in the second paragraph shall be amended to "Banker" --this paragraph shall then be deleted from this Rule. (*Was: 843*) distributed.
\n'),(37292,843,495958,495965,'Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player during the current Nomic Week.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than the time the Proposal is distributed.
\n'),(37293,849,495966,495967,'Officers (excluding Viziers, Ordinancekeepors, and any other Officers whose duties pertain only to a single Group) shall receive a salaryAt the beginning of 3 Points per week. each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.
\n
\nThis Rule applies to Offices in general, and defers to the RulesThe designated weekly salary for specific Offices. any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.
\n'),(37294,849,495967,495970,'At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.
\n
\nThe designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers resultng from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n'),(37295,849,495970,495971,'At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.
\n
\nThe designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n
\n transfers resultng resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n'),(37296,849,495971,495972,' Nomic week, Week, each player filling an Office receives Officer shall receive the designated weekly salary salaries for each Office which the Office(s) e holds, provided that e has filled continuously held them for the previous entire five days. days preceding without interruption. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfer resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n
\nThe designated weeklyUnless otherwise specified, the salary for any particular an Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. Points.
\n'),(37297,849,495972,495973,' interruption. The
\n
\nIf the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall detect and report all transfer transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3 Points.
\n'),(37298,849,495973,495974,' designated salaries Salary for the Office(s) e holds, provided that each Office e has held them without interruption for the entire five days preceding without interruption. preceding.
\n
\nIf the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3 Points.
\n'),(37299,849,495974,495975,'At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding.
\n
\nIf the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n
\n 3 Points. Mils.
\n'),(37300,849,495975,495976,'At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding.
\n
\nIf the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n
\nUnlessThere shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 10 Marks. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the salary Salary for an Office is 3 Mils. shall be equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37301,849,495976,495978,'At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding.
\n
\nIf the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n
\n to 10 Marks. Salaries 1 VT. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37302,849,495978,495979,' Week, the Registrar shall pay out to each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e that Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding.
\n
\n Week, that Officer\'s then no payment of Salary for shall be made in a given Nomic Week shall be forfeited if that document has was not been distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. Week.
\n
\nThere shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37303,849,495979,495980,'At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding.
\n
\nIf the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, then no payment of Salary shall be made in a given Nomic Week if that document was not distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThere shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37304,849,495980,495981,'At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding.
\n
\nThere shall be is a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT. Salaries a number of Voting Tokens, the level of which is set by the Chancellor, as described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37305,849,495981,495982,' each Nomic Week, month, the Registrar shall pay out to each Officer Player the designated Salary for each Office that Officer Player has held without interruption for the entire five a total of at least 12 days preceding. in the preceding month.
\n
\nThere is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Voting Tokens, the level of which is set by the Chancellor, as described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37306,849,495982,495983,' the Registrar Payroll Clerk shall pay out to each Player for the designated Salary for each Office that Player has held for a total of at least 12 days in the preceding month.
\n
\n of Voting Tokens, Stems, the level of which is set by the Chancellor, Treasuror, as described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the The Salary for an Office shall be specified in the Treasuror\'s Budget; if an Office\'s Salary is not so specified, it is equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37307,849,495983,495969,' each month, the Payroll Clerk shall pay out to Nomic week, each Player for player filling an Office receives the designated Salary weekly salary for each Office that Player which e has held filled continuously for a total of at least 12 days in the preceding month. previous five days.
\n
\nThere is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Stems, the level of which is set by the Treasuror, as described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. The SalaryThe designated weekly salary for an any particular Office shall be specified in the Treasuror\'s Budget; if an Office\'s Salary is not so specified, it is equal 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to the Basic Salary. all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37308,849,495969,495977,' Nomic week, Week, each player filling an Office receives Officer shall receive the designated weekly salary Salary for each Office which e has filled continuously held without interruption for the previous entire five days. days preceding.
\n
\nThe designated weekly salary for any particularIf the Rules pertaining to an Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.
\n
\nThis Rule defers toThe Registrar shall detect and report all other Rules transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.
\n
\nThere shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which do not contain this sentence. is equal to 10 Marks. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.
\n'),(37309,856,495987,495988,'Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new Conserved Quantity.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other rules regarding voting.
\n'),(37310,856,495988,495989,'Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new Conserved Quantity.
\n
\n regarding voting. voting. (*Was: 856*)
\n'),(37311,861,495990,495991,'The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet. The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a bonus of five Points.
\n
\nIf another Player than the Ambassador locates such a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the Ambassador to this Player.
\n
\nTo qualify for the reward, at least half the Players of such a Game should not play already in *this* Nomic Game.
\n'),(37312,861,495991,495992,'The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet. The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a bonus of five Points.
\n
\nIf another Player than the Ambassador locates such a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the Ambassador to this Player.
\n
\n Nomic Game. Game. (*Was: 861*)
\n'),(37313,865,495995,495996,' 2 Points. Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Proposal. Voting results.
\n
\nTo be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party.
\n'),(37314,865,495996,495997,'Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. This is done be posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to the Public Forum, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more than four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Nomic community, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Voting results.
\n
\n Guilty Party. Party. (*Was: 865*)
\n'),(37315,866,495998,495999,' 2 Points. Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Proposal. Voting results.
\n
\nTo be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when and to whom the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party.
\n'),(37316,866,495999,496000,'Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. Should the Proposer desire, e may decide to proto-Propose it to eir own Group rather than to the Public Forum. This is done by Posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to all Active members of eir Group, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more then four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Group members, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Voting results.
\n
\n Guilty Party. Party. (*Was: 866*)
\n'),(37317,869,404410,405099,'Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player.
\n
\nEach Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.
\n
\n the 12 365 previous months, days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends two months afterwards. sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWheneverWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period ends, concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(37318,869,405099,405111,'Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player.
\n
\nEach Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(37319,869,405111,405216,'Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player.
\n
\nEach PlayerReadiness is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e stuck player switch with values ready and unready.
\n
\nAn unready player may become Ready by announcing that e does so. flip eir readiness to ready.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(37320,869,405216,405238,''),(37321,869,405238,405429,' a Player player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating public forum announcing that e registers as a Player. player. Unless other Rules rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player. player.
\n
\nReadiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and unready.
\n
\nAn unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.
\n
\n a person registers as a Player in Agora, player registers, and that person player has not previously been registered as a Player player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends lasts sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. days, not including Holidays. A Player player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever:
\n
\n(i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or
\n
\n(ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday,
\n
\neir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday.
\n
\nWhenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday.
\n
\nFor the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday. registration.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.
\n'),(37322,869,405429,405537,'AnyA person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering may do so become a registered player by sending a message to a public forum announcing that e registers as a player. Unless other rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered player.
\n
\nReadiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and unready.
\n
\nAn unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers, and that player has not previously been registered as a player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of which sets forth eir registration and lasts sixty days, not including Holidays. A player is only subject intent to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.
\n
\nWhenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready. register.
\n'),(37323,869,405537,405628,' registering may become a registered player is permitted to register.
\n
\nA person registers or deregisters by sending announcement.
\n
\nWhenever a message to person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a public forum which sets forth eir intent player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to register. be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n'),(37324,869,405628,405915,'A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering is permitted to register.
\n
\nA person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a natural person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37325,869,405915,405939,'A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering is permitted to register.
\n
\nA person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\nWhenever a person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\n a natural first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37326,869,405939,405953,'A person whoEach entity at any time either is or is not currently registered as a player player. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player, and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is not prohibited from registering used without an explicit direct object, the action is permitted to register. implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players.
\n
\n person is permitted to register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\n a person registers, e becomes a player.
\n
\nWhenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37327,869,405953,406064,'Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player, and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players.
\n
\nA person is permitted to register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by announcement.
\n
\n player is deregistered, deregisters, e is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37328,869,406064,406111,'EachCitizenship is an entity at any time either switch with values Null (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is or an entity whose citizenship is not a player. The verb Registered. "To register" and "to be registered" means to become a player, player" are synonymous with "to flip one\'s citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or are synonymous with "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, flip the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players. subject\'s citizenship to Null".
\n
\n person is permitted to may register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters (unless prevented by announcement. the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nWhenever aA player deregisters, e is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered may deregister by any player by announcement. announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n'),(37329,869,406111,406140,'Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. "To register" and "to become a player" are synonymous with "to flip one\'s citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and "to be deregistered" are synonymous with "to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null".
\n
\nA person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nA player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37330,869,406140,406202,' the Registrar. registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. "To register" and "to become a player" are synonymous with "to flip one\'s citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and "to be deregistered" are synonymous with "to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null". Registered.
\n
\nA person may register (unless prevented byThe verb "to be registered" means to become a player (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Null to Registered), and the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes verb "to be deregistered" means to register, requests registration, or requests permission cease to be a player (i.e., to register. have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to Null). Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive.
\n
\nA player may deregister person CAN register, unless prevented by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. the rules, by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\n player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37331,869,406202,406329,' values Null Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered.
\n
\n from Null 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 Null). Where Unregistered). Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive.
\n
\nA person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nA player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37332,869,406329,496871,' is Registered. Registered. Changes to citizenship are secured.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, register by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nA player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37333,869,496871,496970,'Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. Changes to citizenship are secured.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA first-class person CAN register by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register. register.
\n
\nA second-class person CAN register with Agoran Consent.
\n
\nA player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37334,869,496970,497468,'Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. Changes to citizenship are secured.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register.
\n
\nA second-class person CAN register with Agoran Consent.
\n
\n announcement. E A person CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. being deregistered by any means other than by a mechanism that the rules explicitly describe as a means of honorable deregistration.
\n
\nA player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(37335,879,404495,404817,'An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs cast votes on it.
\n
\n Active Noisy Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37336,879,404817,404891,' on it, and the Speaker did not Veto it.
\n
\nA Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if: (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37337,879,404891,404900,'An Ordinary Proposal ordinary proposal achieves Quorum quorum if at least three Oligarchs oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not Veto it.
\n
\nA Democratic Proposal democratic proposal achieves Quorum quorum if: (1) at least one-third one third of all Active Noisy Players, active noisy players, or (2) at least one-fifth one fifth of all Players non-frozen players cast votes on it. Quorum
\n
\nQuorum for a Democratic Proposal democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of Players non-frozen players and number of Active Noisy Players active noisy players at the time that the Proposal proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37338,879,404900,404921,'An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it.
\n
\nA democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it.
\n
\nQuorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nA Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37339,879,404921,404968,' on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\nA democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it.
\n
\nQuorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nA Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37340,879,404968,405085,'An(a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\nA(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) if at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it.
\n
\nQuorum(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nA Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it. later.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37341,879,405085,405313,' three oligarchs shareholders cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\n(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it.
\n
\n(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37342,879,405313,405390,''),(37343,879,405390,405414,' three shareholders players cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.
\n
\n(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it.
\n
\n(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37344,879,405414,405585,'(a) An ordinary proposal achievesThe quorum if at least three players cast votes on it, and for an Agoran decision is one third the Speaker did not veto it. number of eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the quorum level is the number of eligible voters).
\n
\n(b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it.
\n
\n(c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.does not count towards quorum."
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37345,879,405585,405907,'The quorumQuorum for an Agoran decision is one third N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters, voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless there are fewer this is greater than five eligible voters, N, in which case the quorum level is the number of eligible voters). N).
\n
\ndoes not count towards quorum."
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37346,879,405907,405918,'Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which quorum is N).
\n
\nVoters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered eligible for the purposes of this rule.
\n
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37347,879,405918,405926,' voters at the start of the with a positive voting period), limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N). N).
\n
\n
\nVoters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered eligible for the purposes of this rule.
\n
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37348,879,405926,432231,' is N). N, or the decision is whether to approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero).
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37349,879,432231,496736,' is N, or the decision is whether to approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero). N).
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nObjection), Apr. 20 1999
\n'),(37350,880,404441,404823,'A Player may, at any time,An oligarch or the holder of an office may resign from eir position at any Office which time by announcing that e currently holds. does so.
\n
\nAn ElecteeThe electee to an Office who resigns from that Office office may appoint another player as a successor at the time when e resigns. In this case, If so, the resigning Player player is retired from that Office; office, and if within one week from the appointment the named successor agrees succcessor publicly agrees to be successor to the Office, the named successor office, that player becomes holder of the Office. office.
\n
\nA non-ElecteeAn oligarch may appoint another player as a successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is removed from the Oligarchy, and if within one week from the appointment the named successsor publicly agrees to be successor to the seat in the Oligarchy and pays a fee of 1 Voting Entitlement, that player becomes an Oligarch.
\n
\nA non-electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee electee who does not name a successor is immediately removed from office. An oligarch who does not name a successor, successor is immediately removed from Office. the Oligarchy.
\n'),(37351,880,404823,404871,'An oligarch or theThe holder of an office Office may resign from eir position at any time it by announcing that e does so.
\n
\nThe electee toIf the holder of an office may appoint another player as Office is its Electee, and appoints a successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is retired from that office, and if within one week from the appointment the named succcessor publicly agrees to be successor to the office, that player becomes holder of the office. resigns, then:
\n
\nAn oligarch may appoint another player as a successor when e resigns. If so, the(a) The resigning player Player is removed retired from that Office. (b) If the Oligarchy, and if successor consents within one week from the appointment a week, then e becomes holder of that Office. (c) If the named successsor publicly agrees to be successor to the seat in the Oligarchy and pays does not consent within a fee of 1 Voting Entitlement, week, then the resigning Player is removed from that player becomes an Oligarch. Office.
\n
\nA non-electee who resigns or an electee who does not name a successor is immediately removed from office. An oligarch who does not name a successorOtherwise, the resigning Player is immediately removed from the Oligarchy. that Office.
\n'),(37352,889,404532,404835,'There exists the Office ofThe Clerk of the Courts, whose responsibility it Courts (CotC) is to oversee the judicial system. an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report of the Clerk of the Courts shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past Calls for Judgement (CFJs). The CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its its statement; (ii) the the date on which it was called; (iii) its its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\n the Clerk CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may, may Without Objection, Objection remove any CFJ from the list that e deems no longer relevant. relevant from the list.
\n'),(37353,889,404835,405292,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(37354,889,405292,405514,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\n CotC\'s Weekly Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(37355,889,405514,405813,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(37356,889,405813,406030,'The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ:
\n
\n(i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.
\n
\nWhenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list.
\n'),(37357,889,406030,406019,''),(37358,893,496002,496003,'Newer foreign policy directives take precedence over older ones.
\n
\n records only after it has by Explicit Self-Repeal, or by being explicitly been superceded in by another directive, or by being repealed via another foreign policy directive.
\n'),(37359,897,496005,496006,'AThe Player that Calls For who submits a Call for Judgement may Bar is permitted to specify up to three Players who are to be Barred from Judging that Statement. Players CFJ. Any Players that have been are so Barred from a Statement are ineligible to render Judgement on Judge that Statement. CFJ.
\n'),(37360,897,496006,496007,'The Player who submits Caller of a Call for Judgement is permitted to specify CFJ may Bar up to three Players who are to be Barred from Judging that CFJ. Any Players
\n
\nAny Player whose Executor is the Caller of a CFJ is Barred from Judging that are so CFJ.
\n
\nAny Player Barred are from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n'),(37361,897,496007,404536,''),(37362,897,404536,404937,'The Caller ofA Player Barred from Judging a CFJ may Bar up is ineligible to three Players from Judging Judge that CFJ.
\n
\n Player whose sharing an Executor is with the Caller of a CFJ is automatically Barred from Judging that CFJ.
\n
\nAny Player Barred from JudgingWhen submitting a CFJ is ineligible CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to Judge three Players from Judging that CFJ.
\n'),(37363,897,404937,405705,'The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below.
\n
\nThe CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ.
\n
\nA Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nAny Player sharing an Executor withWhen submitting a general CFJ, the Caller of a CFJ is automatically Barred may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen submittingThe defendant of a CFJ, Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. The Plantiff may bar one other Player when e submits the Caller CFJ. The Defendant may Bar up to three Players bar one other Player from Judging that CFJ. judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge.
\n'),(37364,897,405705,405762,'The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below.
\n
\nThe CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ.
\n
\nA Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ.
\n
\n The Plantiff Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ. The The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge.
\n'),(37365,897,405762,405927,'The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below.
\n
\nThe CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ.
\n
\nA Player Barred player barred from Judging judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge judge that CFJ. CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging it.
\n
\nWhen submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ.
\n
\nThe defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge.
\n'),(37366,897,405927,405957,'The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below.
\n
\nThe CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ.
\n
\nA player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging it.
\n
\nWhen submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ.
\n
\nThe defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge.
\n'),(37367,897,405957,496013,'When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below.
\n
\nThe CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ.
\n
\nA player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging it.
\n
\n a general CFJ, the Caller caller may Bar bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ.
\n
\nThe defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred players from judging it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge. that CFJ.
\n'),(37368,897,496013,496014,'A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging it.
\n
\nWhen submitting a CFJ, the caller may bar up to three players from judging that CFJ.
\n'),(37369,897,496014,405983,'A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging it.
\n
\nWhen submitting a CFJ, the caller may bar up to three players from judging that CFJ.
\n'),(37370,906,496019,496022,'The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of Point changes and reporting them to the Scorekeepor is bestowed upon another Player:
\n
\n* All Point changes directly related to the submission of Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the voting results.
\n
\n* All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the voting results.
\n
\n* All point changes resulting from Vototron contributions: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the voting results.
\n
\n* All point changes resulting from fees for judgements, salaries and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later than the message announcing the outcome of the judgement.
\n
\n* Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility of Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week.
\n
\n* Point changes regarding the "Squealer/Ninny" Rule: If the Ninny must lose Points, the responsibility lies with the Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible.
\n
\n* Marks interest: responsibility of Banker to nofify Scorekeepor as soon as possible following the mandated interst payment.
\n
\n* Proposal lottery: responsibility of Sweepstakes Officer, who must notify Scorekeepor as soon as possible after the drawing.
\n
\n* Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the payment is earned.
\n
\n* Stock dividends: responsibility of the Banker for notifying Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the dividends are earned.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor notification must be via the public forum or, if individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented, must be made on a distribution list which is potentially available to anyone who wishes to subscribe to it. This paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require a private Scorekeepor notification. The notification need not be on a separate message, as long as the Scorekeepor is mentioned, and the message is on a list which is received by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\n other Rules. Rules. (*Was: 906*)
\n'),(37371,906,496022,496023,'The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of Point changes and reporting them to involuntary transfers of Currencies shall be detected by the Player specified below, within the Scorekeepor is bestowed upon another Player: time limit specified, if any.
\n
\n* All Point changes directly related to Transfers resulting from the submission payment of Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing fixed weekly Salaries: the voting results. Scorekeepor;
\n
\n* All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than Transfers resulting from the message announcing End of a Game: the voting results. Scorekeepor;
\n
\n* All point changes Transfers resulting from Vototron contributions: responsibility the registration of Speaker, who must report these no later than a new Player or the message announcing deregistration of an existing Player: the voting results. Scorekeepor;
\n
\n* All point changes Transfers resulting from fees for judgements, salaries and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later than the message announcing the outcome dissolution of a Group: the judgement. Scorekeepor;
\n
\n* Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility Transfers resulting from the change of Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week. Speakership: the Scorekeepor;
\n
\n* Point changes regarding Transfers resulting from the "Squealer/Ninny" Rule: If submission of Proposals: the Ninny must lose Points, Promoter, not later than the responsibility lies with message which distributes the Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible. Proposals;
\n
\n* Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying Scorekeepor no Transfers resulting from Voting upon Proposals: the Assessor, not later than one Week following the time message announcing the payment is earned. Voting Results;
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor notification must be via* Transfers resulting from the public forum or, if individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented, must be made on a distribution list which is potentially available to anyone who wishes assignment fees, salaries, or penalties to subscribe to it. This paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require a private Scorekeepor notification. Judges or Justices: The notification need not be on a separate message, as long as Clerk of the Scorekeepor is mentioned, and Courts, not later than the message is on a list which is received by announces the event which caused the Scorekeepor. mandated Transfer;
\n
\nOther classes of Point changes whose legal responsibilty for reporting is other than* Transfers resulting from penalties or bonus imposed by the Rules, when the Rules do not specify another Player to make the report: the first Player to detect and report the conditions which cause the Scorekeepor Transfer to be mandated.
\n
\nOther Rules may specify the party required to report a class of involuntary transfer not specified in this Rule.
\n
\nThe specified Player shall report the transfer in question to the appropriate Recordkeepors. All transfers must be defined by other Rules. (*Was: 906*) reported at least as soon as possible; if a sooner time is specified, that time takes precedence.
\n'),(37372,906,496023,496020,'The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of involuntary transfers of Currencies shall be detected by the Player specified below, within Point changes and reporting them to the time limit specified, if any. Scorekeepor is bestowed upon another Player:
\n
\n* Transfers resulting from All Point changes directly related to the payment submission of fixed weekly Salaries: Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the Scorekeepor; voting results.
\n
\n* Transfers resulting from the End All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals: responsibility of a Game: Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the Scorekeepor; voting results.
\n
\n* Transfers All point changes resulting from the registration Vototron contributions: responsibility of a new Player or Speaker, who must report these no later than the deregistration of an existing Player: message announcing the Scorekeepor; voting results.
\n
\n* Transfers All point changes resulting from fees for judgements, salaries and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later than the message announcing the dissolution outcome of a Group: the Scorekeepor; judgement.
\n
\n* Transfers resulting from the change Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility of Speakership: the Scorekeepor; Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week.
\n
\n* Transfers resulting from Point changes regarding the submission of Proposals: "Squealer/Ninny" Rule: If the Promoter, not later than Ninny must lose Points, the message which distributes responsibility lies with the Proposals; Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible.
\n
\n* Transfers resulting from Voting upon Proposals: Marks interest: responsibility of Banker to nofify Scorekeepor as soon as possible following the Assessor, not later the message announcing the Voting Results; mandated interst payment.
\n
\n* Transfers resulting from the assignment fees, salaries, or penalties to Judges or Justices: The Clerk Proposal lottery: responsibility of Sweepstakes Officer, who must notify Scorekeepor as soon as possible after the Courts, not later than the message which announces the event which caused the mandated Transfer; drawing.
\n
\n* Transfers resulting from penalties or bonus imposed by Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the Rules, when time the Rules do not specify another Player to make the report: the first Player to detect and report the conditions which cause the Transfer to be mandated. payment is earned.
\n
\nOther Rules may specify* Stock dividends: responsibility of the Scorekeepor who calculates the party required to report a class dividends earned. However The Banker must notify the Scorekeepor of involuntary transfer not specified changes in this Rule. the Stock ownership.
\n
\nThe specified Player shall report the transfer in question to Scorekeepor notification must be via the appropriate Recordkeepors. All transfers public forum or, if individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented, must be reported at least made on a distribution list which is potentially available to anyone who wishes to subscribe to it. This paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require a private Scorekeepor notification. The notification need not be on a separate message, as soon long as possible; if the Scorekeepor is mentioned, and the message is on a sooner time list which is specified, that time takes precedence. received by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\nOther classes of Point changes whose legal responsibilty for reporting is other than the Scorekeepor may be defined by other Rules.
\n'),(37373,906,496020,496021,'The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of Point changes and reporting them to the Scorekeepor is bestowed upon another Player:
\n
\n* All Point changes directly related to the submission of Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the voting results.
\n
\n* All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the voting results.
\n
\n* All point changes resulting from Vototron contributions: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than the message announcing the voting results.
\n
\n* All point changes resulting from fees for judgements, salaries and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later than the message announcing the outcome of the judgement.
\n
\n* Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility of Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week.
\n
\n* Point changes regarding the "Squealer/Ninny" Rule: If the Ninny must lose Points, the responsibility lies with the Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible.
\n
\n* Marks interest: responsibility of Banker to nofify Scorekeepor as soon as possible following the mandated interst payment.
\n
\n* Proposal lottery: responsibility of Sweepstakes Officer, who must notify Scorekeepor as soon as possible after the drawing.
\n
\n* Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the payment is earned.
\n
\n* Stock dividends: responsibility of the Scorekeepor who calculates the dividends earned. However The Banker must notify the Scorekeepor of changes in the Stock ownership.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor notification must be via the public forum or, if individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented, must be made on a distribution list which is potentially available to anyone who wishes to subscribe to it. This paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require a private Scorekeepor notification. The notification need not be on a separate message, as long as the Scorekeepor is mentioned, and the message is on a list which is received by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\n other Rules. Rules. (*Was: 906*)
\n'),(37374,908,404577,404960,'If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement.
\n
\nA Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
\n
\nThe Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology.
\n
\nThe failure to abide by an Order to Submit a Formal Apology is the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, to be reported by the Judge who issued the original Order.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37375,908,404960,405075,' a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges that a Player (herein called (hereafter the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules is judged TRUE, convicted of a Crime, then instead of executing Sentencing Orders, the Judge so finding may (Without Objection) Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be publish a Crime or an Infraction, then the Judge must issue such Formal Apology. Such an Order is known as soon as possible after the Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement. an Order to Apologize.
\n
\n Apology shall consist of a letter of must be at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining and must explain the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of which must appear in the Formal Apology.
\n
\nThe Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of upFailure to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology.
\n
\nThe failure to abide by obey an Order to Submit a Formal Apology Apologize within 72 hours is the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, Shamelessness, to be reported by the Judge who issued the original Order.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37376,908,405075,405722,'IfA sentencing order may require a Player defendant (hereafter the Ninny) is convicted of a Crime, then instead of executing Sentencing Orders, the Judge may (Without Objection) Order the Ninny to publish a Formal Apology. Such an Order is known as an Order to Apologize. Apology.
\n
\nA Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of which must appear in the Formal Apology.
\n
\nFailure toA defendant must obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours is the Class 3 Infraction of Shamelessness, to be reported by the Judge who issued the Order. its execution.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37377,910,496024,496025,'Let there be three Players known as the Justices, and an Office known as the Justiciar. The Justiciar shall not receive a weekly salary. The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are ineligible to be Justiciar.
\n
\nThe positions of Justice shall be held by the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, and the Justiciar; or by their representatives as detailed in this Rule.
\n
\nThe Justices shall have the duty to Judge Statements that have been Appealed. They shall receive the same compensation as Judges for each Statement so Judged.
\n
\nThe Speaker and Clerk may delegate their duties as Justices to other willing Players if they desire. They must do so if a Player would otherwise hold more than one position of Justice.
\n
\n a Rule or committing a Crime. Rule.
\n
\nIf no Player is willing to receive the duties of Justice for a case, the Clerk of the Courts shall select one randomly.
\n'),(37378,910,496025,496026,' be three Players known as the Justices, and an Office known as the of Justiciar. The Justiciar shall not receive a weekly salary. The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are ineligible to be Justiciar.
\n
\nThe positions of Justice shall be held by the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, and the Justiciar; or by their representatives as detailed in this Rule.
\n
\nThe Justices shall have the duty to Judge Statements that have been Appealed. They shall receive the same compensation as Judges for each Statement so Judged.
\n
\nThe Speaker and Clerk may delegate their duties as Justices to other willing Players if they desire. They must do so if a Player would otherwise hold more than one position of judging appeals when serving as Justice.
\n
\nAny Justice must so delegate eir duties for a particular case if e made the original CFJ, if e was the Judge of the original CFJ, or if e was Accused by that CFJ of breaking a Rule.
\n
\nIf E shall receive no Player weekly salary. A vacant Office of Justiciar is willing to receive filled in the duties of Justice for a case, usual manner, but the Speaker or Clerk of the Courts shall select one randomly. may not become Justiciar.
\n'),(37379,910,496026,496027,'LetThe Justiciar
\n
\nLet there be an Office of Justiciar. The Justiciar shall have the duties of judging appeals when serving as Justice. E shall receive no weekly salary. A vacant Office of Justiciar is filled in by an Election.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the office has become empty, the Registrar shall begin the usual manner, but Election by posting a call for nominations to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThe Nominating Period shall be three days, and the Vote Collector shall be the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Speaker or Clerk of the Courts may not nominate for this Election, and may not become Justiciar.
\n'),(37380,910,496027,496028,'The JusticiarThere shall exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty of Judging various matters of law, when the Rules so require.
\n
\nLet there be an Office of Justiciar. TheThe Justiciar shall have the duties of judging appeals when serving as Justice. E shall receive no fixed weekly salary. A vacant Office of Justiciar is filled by an Election. salary.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the office has become empty, the RegistrarA Vacant Office of Justiciar shall begin the Election be filled by posting a call for nominations an Election according to the Public Forum. standard procedure, except that:
\n
\nThe* the Nominating Period shall be three days, and days; * the Vote Collector shall be the Registrar. Registrar, or in eir absence the Speaker; and * the Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to be nominated.
\n
\n Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are prohibited from becoming the Justiciar. If the Player holding the Office of Justiciar becomes either Speaker or Clerk of the Courts, and thus is both Justiciar and either Speaker or Clerk of the Courts may not nominate for this Election, a period of an entire week, e is removed as Justiciar and may not become Justiciar. the Office becomes vacant.
\n'),(37381,910,496028,496029,'There shallLet there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty of Judging to Judge various matters of law, law when the Rules so require.
\n
\n Justiciar shall does not receive no a fixed weekly salary.
\n
\nA VacantThe Speaker and the Player holding the Office of Justiciar shall be filled by an Election according the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the standard procedure, except that: Office of Justiciar.
\n
\n* the Nominating Period shall be three days; * the Vote Collector shall be the Registrar, or in eir absence the Speaker; and * the Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to be nominated.
\n
\nThe Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are prohibited from becoming the Justiciar. IfIf the Player holding the Office of Justiciar becomes either Speaker or Clerk of the Courts, and thus is both Justiciar and either Speaker or Clerk of the Courts for a period of an entire week, e is removed as Justiciar and immediately retired from the Office becomes vacant. of Justiciar.
\n'),(37382,910,496029,496030,'Let there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.
\n
\nThe Justiciar does not receive a fixed weekly salary.
\n
\nThe Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the Office of Justiciar.
\n
\n the Player holding the Office of Justiciar ever becomes either Speaker or Clerk of the Courts, e is immediately retired removed from the Office of Justiciar.
\n'),(37383,910,496030,496031,'Let there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.
\n
\n fixed weekly salary.
\n
\nThe Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the Office of Justiciar.
\n
\nIf the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed from the Office of Justiciar.
\n'),(37384,910,496031,496032,'The Justiciar
\n
\nLet there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.
\n
\n Justiciar does not receive receives a fixed salary. Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n
\nThe Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the Office of Justiciar.
\n
\nIf the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed from the Office of Justiciar.
\n'),(37385,910,496032,496033,'The JusticiarThere exists the Office of Justiciar, whose responsibility it is to serve on a Board of Appeals when necessary.
\n
\nLet there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.
\n
\nThe Justiciar receives a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n
\nTheThe Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election cannot Nominate for the Office of Justiciar.
\n
\nIf the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed from the Office of Justiciar.
\n'),(37386,910,496033,404566,''),(37387,910,404566,404836,'There exists the Office of Justiciar, whose responsibility itThe Justiciar is an office; its holder is to serve responsible for justice and for serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.
\n
\nTheNeither the Speaker and nor the Clerk of the Courts cannot Nominate (CotC) may nominate for the Office office of Justiciar.
\n
\nIf Justiciar; if the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, CotC, e is removed from the Office office of Justiciar.
\n'),(37388,910,404836,405325,'The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for justice and for serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.
\n
\nNeither the Speaker nor the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) may nominate for the office of Justiciar; if the Justiciar ever becomes CotC, e is removed from the office of Justiciar.
\n'),(37389,910,405325,405445,' for justice and for justice, serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary. necessary, and for maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.
\n
\nThe Justiciar\'s monthly report shall contain the following information for each organization:
\n
\na) Its name. b) Its administrator. c) Its executor. d) The maintainer of its charter. e) A list of players within its jurisdiction. f) The charter of each organization.
\n
\nIn addition, as soon as possible after the Justiciar is informed of a change in any of the properties a-f above for an organization, the Justiciar shall report the change.
\n'),(37390,910,405445,405486,' when necessary, and for maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.
\n
\nThe Justiciar\'s monthly report shall contain the following information for each organization:
\n
\na) Its name. b) Its administrator. c) Its executor. d) The maintainer of its charter. e) A list of players within its jurisdiction. f) The charter of each organization.
\n
\nIn addition, as soon as possible after the Justiciar is informed of a change in any of the properties a-f above for an organization, the Justiciar shall report the change. necessary.
\n'),(37391,910,405486,496038,'The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for justice, serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.
\n'),(37392,911,404565,404794,'When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n E was is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration when it was called, consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board.
\n
\nA Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37393,911,404794,404904,'When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n the Board. Board. vi) E is frozen.
\n
\nA Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37394,911,404904,404953,' an appeal Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by subject of the appeal. Appeal.
\n
\n three distinct Players, called Justices. The Appelate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts selects correctly announces the Justices for each Board, identity of all Appelate Judges, determined as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The follows:
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible; eligible. b) The Justiciar Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible; eligible. c) The CotC Justiciar is selected, if eligible; eligible. d) Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, selection by the CotC, Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n selected to serve on for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge in of the matter subject of the Board is to consider. Appeal. iv) E is not eligible ineligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for at the Board. time of selection. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three Active.
\n
\nAn Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Players from being selected Player as eir replacement by informing the CotC for Clerk of the Board. vi) E Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is frozen. recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nA JusticeThe last Appelate Judge selected is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying Lead Judge for that Board. If the Clerk of the Courts of Lead Judge is replaced, then the appointment. replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37395,911,404953,405321,'When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\n by random selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. v) E is not Active.
\n
\nAn Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nThe last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37396,911,405321,405610,'When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\n three Appelate Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Appellate Judge.
\n
\n all Appelate Appellate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible. d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. v) E is not Active.
\n
\nAn Appelate Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\n an Appelate Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\n last Appelate Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37397,911,405610,405717,' Appeal.
\n
\nA A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible. d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\n of selection. v) E is not Active. selection.
\n
\nAn Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nThe last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37398,911,405717,406000,'When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows:
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.
\n
\nA Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true:
\n
\ni) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.
\n
\nAn Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\n shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nThe last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37399,911,406000,406411,'When an AppealThere is initiated, a Board subclass of Appeals shall be selected judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case\'s purpose is to reach a decision about determine the subject appropriateness of a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the Appeal. A Board judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this Rule rule is an Appellate Judge. used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment.
\n
\nA BoardAn appeal concerning any assignment of Appeals is selected when judgement in a non-appeal case within the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows: past two weeks, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support.
\n
\na) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The ClerkThe entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the Courts members is selected, if eligible. c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by qualified to be assigned as judge of the Clerk prior case and none of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players. members is the prior judge.
\n
\nA PlayerAn appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is ineligible applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition are:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the of the prior judgement
\n
\n* OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for selection the prior question, appropriate if any the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question
\n
\nInitiation of an appeal case renders the following 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is true: assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\ni) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.
\n
\nAn Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nThe last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37400,911,406411,406078,'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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the of the prior judgement
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nInitiation 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37401,911,406078,406461,'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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n the of the prior judgement
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nInitiation 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37402,911,406461,432257,'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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nInitiation 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37403,911,432257,432326,'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.
\n
\n two weeks, other than weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement
\n
\n* 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
\n
\nInitiation 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37404,911,432326,432366,'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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n on disposition are: disposition, and their effects, are as follows:
\n
\n prior question question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n new opportunity opportunity; the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n prior judgement judgement; the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n prior question; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nInitiation ofWhen an appeal case renders is initiated, the prior question suspended. It is suspended, and remains suspended as long as so until 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:
\n
\n* if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again
\n
\n* if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question judged.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37405,911,432366,496870,'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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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, and their effects, are as follows:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n prior judgement; the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement but SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case can will make a better judgement if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered open again opportunity
\n
\n prior judgement; judgement, or if the prior judge exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly incidental material benefit common among many players); the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will not make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* 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; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nWhen an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37406,911,496870,497279,'ThereAppeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s 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.
\n
\nAn An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n as follows, based on the appropriateness of the effects, are as follows:
\n
\n* * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly incidental material benefit common among many players); the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will not make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* 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; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nWhen an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged.
\n
\nA panel CAN publishAs soon as possible after a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM, judicial panel is assigned, each 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37407,911,497279,497317,'Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s 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 CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n the effects, are as follows: * prior judgement at the time it was delivered:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly incidental material benefit common among many players); the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will not make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* 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; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nWhen an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37408,911,497317,497352,' case\'s 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
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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, and their effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the prior judgement at the time it was delivered:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly incidental material benefit common among many players); the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will not make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* 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; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nWhen an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged.
\n
\n each member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating a valid and appropriate judgement to assign to the case -- only the first such published opinion for each member is used to determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD include arguments for eir choice of judgement. If, immediately after either all members have so published or the time limit for so publishing has ended, a majority of the members have opined for the same judgement, the panel acts to deliver the judgement in question. If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. If the panel publishes a valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules, the requirement for individual members to publish individual opinions is waived.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37409,911,497352,497440,'Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. 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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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, and their effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the prior judgement at the time it was delivered:
\n
\n* AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again
\n
\n* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly incidental material benefit common among many players); the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will not make a better judgement if given a new opportunity
\n
\n* 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; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question
\n
\nWhen an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating a valid and appropriate judgement to assign to the case -- only the first such published opinion for each member is used to determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD include arguments for eir choice of judgement. If, immediately after either all members have so published or the time limit for so publishing has ended, a majority of the members have opined for the same judgement, the panel acts to deliver the judgement in question. If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. If the panel publishes a valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules, the requirement for individual members to publish individual opinions is waived.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)(unattributed) woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(37410,913,496039,496040,'The Official Name of this Nomic shall be Agora.
\n'),(37411,942,496043,496044,' time, then a new Speaker is selected according to the "Rules of Succession", or if no such rules are defined, the other Player not on hold with the highest Score becomes the Speaker. This does not force the Game to be over in this case, and Scores are not reset to 0. The Game continues until a Player Wins, at which time a new Game determination is begun and the Winner becomes made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker. The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain has not changed since the former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc., but CFJ was made, then if this there is not possible, then a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the new old Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. If becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker is replaced in this manner, e has eir score set selected according to minus 2N Points immediately, where N is the number Order of Points required for a Player to Win Succession, as defined elsewhere, with the Game; this is Player who made the Scorekeepor\'s responsibility. CFJ as Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\n"Impossible"The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. If a Speaker is replaced in this manner, all the Points in eir Treasury are transferred to the Bank, and e further receives 15 Blots, the receipt of which must be reported by the Player who made the CFJ.
\n
\n"Impossible" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution, resetting of scores, or the commission of Crimes or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity to defend eirself.
\n
\nThis Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent this class of Judgement.
\n'),(37412,942,496044,496045,'If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed since the CFJ was made, then if there is a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker is selected according to the Order of Succession, as defined elsewhere, with the Player who made the CFJ as Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\n Players. If a Speaker is replaced in this manner, all the Points in eir Treasury are transferred to the Bank, and e A Sepaker who makes further receives 15 Blots, the receipt of which must be reported play impossible by the Player who made the CFJ. eir actions or lack thereof commits a Class A Crime.
\n
\n"Impossible" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution, resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity to defend eirself.
\n
\nThis Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent this class of Judgement.
\n'),(37413,942,496045,496046,'If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed since the CFJ was made, then if there is a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker is selected according to the Order of Succession, as defined elsewhere, with the Player who made the CFJ as Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\n A Sepaker Speaker who makes further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof commits a Class A Crime.
\n
\n"Impossible" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution, resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity to defend eirself.
\n
\nThis Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent this class of Judgement.
\n'),(37414,942,496046,496047,' then if there is a the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker is selected according ceases to the Order of Succession, as defined elsewhere, with the Player who made the CFJ as Arbiter of Succession. be Speaker.
\n
\nThe new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. AA Speaker who makes further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof commits a Class A Crime.
\n
\n"Impossible" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution, resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity to defend eirself.
\n
\nThis Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent this class of Judgement.
\n'),(37415,942,496047,496048,'If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed since the CFJ was made, then the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\n commits the Crime of Speaker Impossibility, a Class A Crime.
\n
\n"Impossible" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution, resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity to defend eirself.
\n
\nThis Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent this class of Judgement.
\n'),(37416,942,496048,496049,'If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed since the CFJ was made, then the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\nA Speaker who makes further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof commits the Crime of Speaker Impossibility, a Class A Crime.
\n
\n"Impossible" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution, resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity to defend eirself.
\n
\nThis Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent this class of Judgement.
\n'),(37417,947,404507,404739,'If(a) If there are 100 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted which, as part of all of its effect, repeals one or more Rules, and immediately prior to if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the adoption of this Proposal there were more than 100 Rules, simplifies the Ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 30 Stems to the Proposer of that Proposal, if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the Proposal simplifies the Ruleset. If Proposal. If the Rulekeepor decides that the Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, e must announce this decision.
\n
\nWhen(b) When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, the Executor of the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. When Blob is Mauvy. As soon as possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this manner, the Executor of the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 30 Stems to the Proposal\'s Proposer. emself.
\n
\nsubstantial
\n'),(37418,947,404739,404750,'(a) If there are 100 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted which, as part of all of its effect, repeals one or more Rules, and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the Proposal simplifies the Ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 30 Stems to the Proposer of that Proposal. If the Rulekeepor decides that the Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, e must announce this decision.
\n
\n decision. Blob is Mauvy. As As soon as possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 30 Stems to emself.
\n
\nsubstantial
\n'),(37419,947,404750,404969,' more Rules, rules, and a Proposal proposal is adopted which, as part of all of its effect, repeals containing a provision that one or more Rules, rules be repealed, and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the Proposal proposal simplifies the Ruleset, ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 30 Stems to the Proposer of that Proposal. If its proposer. If the Rulekeepor decides that the Proposal proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, ruleset, e must announce this decision.
\n
\n(b) When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. As soon as possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 30 Stems to emself.
\n
\nsubstantial
\n'),(37420,947,404969,405017,' out 30 6 Stems to its proposer. If the Rulekeepor decides that the proposal does not simplify the ruleset, e must announce this decision.
\n
\n out 30 6 Stems to emself.
\n
\nsubstantial
\n'),(37421,947,405017,405166,'(a) IfIf there are 100 or more rules, and a proposal is adopted containing a provision that one or more rules be repealed, and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the proposal simplifies the ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 6 Stems to its proposer. If award the Rulekeepor decides that Proposer the proposal does not simplify the ruleset, e must announce this decision. Boon of Tapecutter.
\n
\n(b) WhenIf the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal the proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. As soon as possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in ruleset, e must announce this manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 6 Stems to emself. decision.
\n
\nsubstantial
\n'),(37422,955,404497,404868,'When(a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed, and at least one vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes opposed. the
\n
\nIf(b) If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. for
\n
\nA(c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal may not be adopted (synonymous with the Proposal passing) except as described in this Rule. as
\n'),(37423,955,404868,404934,' ended, the the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of votes against.
\n
\n than or equal to the Adoption Index for for the Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n except as as described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except as described in this Rule.
\n'),(37424,955,404934,405086,'(a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of votes against.
\n
\n than one, and greater than or equal to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, Otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n(c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except as described in this Rule.
\n'),(37425,955,405086,405587,'(a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votesTo determine which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned option on a Voting Index, as follows: if particular Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index collector shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, perform the Voting Index shall be zero; following steps in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by order after the number of votes against. voting period has ended.
\n
\n(b) If(a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the Voting Index is greater than one, and greater than or equal rules require em to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, invalidate, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. no others.
\n
\n(c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in(b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. If this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except number is less than the quorum and there is more than one available option, then the option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum.
\n
\n(c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal or referendum, e shall determine the voting index as described in this Rule. follows:
\n
\n(1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but
\n
\n(2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is zero; otherwise,
\n
\n(3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST.
\n
\nIf the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED. Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is an election, then as long as quorum is achieved, the vote collector has the privilege to choose any option the strength of which meets or exceeds that of any other option to be the option selected by Agora.
\n'),(37426,955,405587,405739,'To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the following steps in order after the voting period has ended.
\n
\n(a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to invalidate, and no others.
\n
\n(b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the quorum and there is more than one available option, then the option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum.
\n
\n a proposal or referendum, proposal, e shall determine the voting index as follows:
\n
\n(1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but
\n
\n(2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is zero; otherwise,
\n
\n(3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST.
\n
\nIf the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED. Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is an election, then as long as quorum is achieved, the vote collector has the privilege to choose any option the strength of which meets or exceeds that of any other option to be the option selected by Agora.
\n'),(37427,955,405739,432230,'To determine which option on a particularThe outcome of an Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the following steps in order after the voting period has ended. is determined as follows.
\n
\n(a) E shall invalidate any If there is more than one available option, and the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots which is less than quorum, then the rules require em to invalidate, and no others. outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum.
\n
\n(b) E shall count If the number decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the voting index is the ratio of the strength of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If this number the voting index is less greater than the quorum 1, and there is more greater than one available option, or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the option selected by Agora outcome is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, ADOPTED; otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(c)(d) If the decision is whether to adopt approve a proposal, e shall determine the voting index as follows: dependent action:
\n
\n(1) if If the strength of FOR OBJECT is positive and greater than or equal to the strength of AGAINST is zero, objection index (if any), then the voting index outcome is Unanimity; but REJECTED.
\n
\n(2) if If the strength of FOR SUPPORT is zero, then less than the voting support index (if any), then the outcome is zero; otherwise, REJECTED.
\n
\n(3) the voting index is If the ratio of the strength of FOR SUPPORT to the combined strength of AGAINST. SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to the majority index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\nIf the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.(4) Otherwise, the option selected by Agora outcome is REJECTED. APPROVED.
\n'),(37428,955,432230,432291,'The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n is whether to adopt a proposal, ordinary or democratic, 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.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:
\n
\n(1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to the objection index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.
\n'),(37429,955,432291,496735,'The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, 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.
\n
\n(d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:
\n
\n(1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to the objection index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.
\n'),(37430,955,496735,496908,'The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n decision is ordinary or democratic, has an adoption index, 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.
\n'),(37431,955,496908,496962,'The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) If the decision has an adoption index, 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.
\n
\n(c) If the decision is for an election, then the outcome is the candidate with the most votes. In case of a tie, the vote collector SHALL select one of the leaders as the outcome. If there are no candidates, then the outcome is null.
\n'),(37432,955,496962,497428,'The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) If the decision has an adoption index, 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.
\n
\n(c) If the decision is for an election, then the outcome is the candidate with the most votes. In case of a tie, the vote collector SHALL select one of the leaders as the outcome. If there are no candidates, then the outcome is null.
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(37433,991,404709,404935,' may seek request formal resolution of any a dispute pertaining to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar. Any document submitted to the Clerk Courts. The submission of the Courts or Justiciar and which is clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement. (Although any CFJ may be filed with the Justiciar, Players are encouraged to file with constitutes proof of the CotC unless there is existence of such a good reason not to.) dispute.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this and other Rules, the submission ofA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ shall constitute proof of may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the existence Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of a dispute. these things.
\n
\n Clerk of the Courts shall distribute publish the text of a CFJ CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including, (including but not limited to, to Arguments and Evidence) not Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it. However, if the CFJ is submitted to the Justiciar, e shall perform all duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to that CFJ.
\n'),(37434,991,404935,405704,'Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a dispute.
\n
\nA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.
\n'),(37435,991,405704,405956,' by submitting publishing a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts. (CFJ). The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a dispute.
\n
\nA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things.
\n'),(37436,991,405956,406071,'Any person may request formal resolution ofA judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a dispute pertaining procedure to this Nomic by publishing settle a Call for Judgement (CFJ). The submission matter of a CFJ constitutes proof controversy. There are subclasses of the existence judicial case with particular features defined by other rules. Subclasses of such a dispute. judicial case exist only as defined by the rules.
\n
\nA CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material;The Clerk of the Judge Courts (CotC) is encouraged, but not required, to take notice an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the status of these things. all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.
\n'),(37437,991,406071,406110,'A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nJudicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(37438,991,406110,406553,' controversy. There are subclasses of
\n
\nEach 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. rules. A judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n cases other (other than appeal cases cases, which have historically been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(37439,991,406553,496750,'A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy.
\n
\n rules. Defining a subclass of judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nJudicial 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.
\n'),(37440,991,496750,497433,'A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy.
\n
\nEach 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. Defining a subclass of judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nJudicial 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(37441,991,497433,404534,'A judicial case, also known asAny Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a call Call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure Judgement to settle the Clerk of the Courts. For the purpose of this and other Rules, the submission of a matter Call for Judgement shall constitute proof of controversy. the existence of a dispute.
\n
\nEach judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular features as defined by other rules. SubclassesAny document submitted to the Clerk of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules. Defining Courts and which is clearly marked as a subclass of judicial case Call for Judgement is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry. Call for Judgement.
\n
\n Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes shall distribute the status text of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.
\n
\nJudicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically been identified Call for Judgement, along with any additional material submitted by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers, to be assigned by Caller (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not later than the Clerk time e announces the identity of the Courts.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 first Judge assigned to Judge it.
\n'),(37442,1006,404429,404821,'An Office is a position so designatedThe Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Rules. Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nEach Office is always held by exactly one Player (calledThe holder of an Officer). Each Office shall office may be held referred to by the Speaker unless otherwise specified. name of the office.
\n'),(37443,1006,404821,405730,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\n the office. office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to acheive Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain offical duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37444,1006,405730,405758,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\n to acheive achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived. achieved.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\n certain offical official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37445,1006,405758,405770,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\n The Herald Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved.
\n
\n information, than then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37446,1006,405770,405845,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. acheived.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37447,1006,405845,405853,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\n the office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37448,1006,405853,405878,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\n the Director of Personnel IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived. achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37449,1006,405878,405970,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\n duty, than then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37450,1006,405970,406008,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nAny Player may make an active PlayerIf the holder duty of an office, thus removing any previous holder from office is to maintain certain information, then the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) officer shall publish that office has not changed hands with this method information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the previous 30 days, and (b) information or the potential officer consents to hold the office after receives a request for the announcement of intent is made. information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, then than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37451,1006,406008,406029,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\n an Officer or the Speaker officer fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.
\n'),(37452,1006,406029,406083,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf an officer fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than directed at an office is not satisfied on time, or if the office is vacant, then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. held that office.
\n'),(37453,1006,406083,406093,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n
\nIf a Timing Order directed at an office is not satisfied on time, or if the office is vacant, then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e held that office.
\n'),(37454,1006,406093,406156,'The Rules may designate positions to be offices. NoA role is an office may be held if and only if it is so defined by more than one player. the rules. Each office that would otherwise not be held by at any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it time either is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n'),(37455,1006,406156,406275,'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.
\n
\nIf the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements.
\n'),(37456,1006,406275,406565,'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.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n'),(37457,1006,406565,432412,'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.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nThe holder of an office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination.
\n'),(37458,1006,432412,496719,'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.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\n an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination.
\n'),(37459,1006,496719,497304,'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.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\n become vacant. As soon as possible after an elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination. vacant.
\n'),(37460,1006,497304,497346,'A role is anAn office if and only if it is so a role defined as such by the rules. Each office at any time either is either vacant (default) or is filled (held) by exactly one player. The An officer is the holder of an office is an officer, and office, who may be referred to by the name of the that office.
\n
\nAn office is imposed if it office is so an office described as such by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is it. All others are elected.
\n
\nThe holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant.
\n'),(37461,1006,497346,497418,'An office is a role defined as such by the rules. Each office is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one player. An officer is the holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that office.
\n
\nAn imposed office is an office described as such by the rule defining it. All others are elected.
\n
\nThe holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(37462,1008,496052,496053,'Let there exist the Patent Title of "Shogun".
\n
\nThe Patent Title of Shogun is awarded automatically toWhenever a Player when e both has at least 30 Kudos becomes a Samurai, and that Player has at least as much Honour Honor as every other Player. Player, that Player is automaticall awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.
\n
\n it when eir Honour drops below if e ceases to be a Samurai.
\n
\nA Samurai is a Player whose Honor is more than 30 Kudos.
\n
\nThis Patent Title shall never be awarded or revoked by Directive.
\n
\nThe Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such award or revocation occurs.
\n'),(37463,1008,496053,496054,'Let there exist the Patent Title of "Shogun".
\n
\n Player becomes is a Samurai, and that Player has at least as much Honor as every other Player, and that Player does not already hold the Patent Title of Shogun, that Player is automaticall automatically awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.
\n
\nThe Patent Title of Shogun is revoked automatically from any Player who holds it if e ceases to be a Samurai.
\n
\nA Samurai is a Player whose Honor is more than 30 Kudos.
\n
\nThis Patent Title shall never be awarded or revoked by Directive.
\n
\nThe Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such award or revocation occurs.
\n'),(37464,1008,496054,496055,'Let there exist the Patent Title of "Shogun".
\n
\nWhenever a Player is a Samurai, that Player has at least as much Honor as every other Player, and that Player does not already hold the Patent Title of Shogun, that Player is automatically awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.
\n
\nThe Patent Title of Shogun is revoked automatically from any Player who holds it if e ceases to be a Samurai.
\n
\nA Samurai is a Player whose Honor is more than 30 Kudos.
\n
\n shall never not be awarded or revoked by Directive. except as specified in this Rule; this Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit otherwise.
\n
\nThe Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such award or revocation occurs.
\n'),(37465,1008,496055,496056,'Let there existA Samurai is a Player whose Honour is more than 30 Kudos. There exists the Patent Title of "Shogun". Shogun.
\n
\nWhenever a PlayerA Samurai whose Honour is a Samurai, that Player has at least as much Honor great as every that of any other Player, Samurai and that Player who does not already hold possess the Patent Title of Shogun, that Player Shogun is automatically awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.
\n
\n Player who holds holding it if e ceases to be a Samurai.
\n
\nA Samurai who is not a Player whose Honor is more than 30 Kudos. Samurai.
\n
\nThis Patent Title shall not be awarded or revoked except as specified in this Rule; this Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit otherwise.
\n
\nThe Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such award or revocation occurs.
\n'),(37466,1016,404416,404893,'At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shallEach player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be changed modified except as specified by methods described explicitly in the Rules. rules.
\n
\nWhenThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold. player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e announces in the Public Forum that e goes On Hold. activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nAn On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e announces in the Public Forum thatWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e comes Off Hold. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last went On Hold. becomes active.
\n
\n"Active"A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and "Inactive" indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "Off Hold" "active" and "On Hold", respectively. "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly active players may vote, make proposals, or hold office. Inactive players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. Frozen players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action.
\n'),(37467,1016,404893,405034,'Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.
\n
\nA player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly an active players player may vote, make proposals, or hold office. Inactive players office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. Frozen players A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action. action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering.
\n'),(37468,1016,405034,405040,'Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.
\n
\nA player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering.
\n
\nNot being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(37469,1016,405040,405047,'Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level.
\n
\nAn activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.
\n
\nA player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\n or action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering. action.
\n
\nNot being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(37470,1016,405047,405063,'Each(a) Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, either active or inactive. "Off hold" and frozen. A player\'s activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules. "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that(b) Whenever a player may have because of eir activity level. registers or reregisters, e is active.
\n
\nAn(c) A player may change eir activity level of active is higher than any other by announcing that e does so, provided that a week has passed since e last changed eir activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen. level.
\n
\nWhenever(d) Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player registers may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or reregisters, e becomes active. action.
\n
\nA player may lower eir(e) This rule takes precedence over each other rule that regulates activity level by announcing that e does so levels and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.
\n
\nAn inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit powers or duties that a player to become active.
\n
\nA frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating have because of eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen".
\n
\nOnly an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action.
\n
\nNot being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition. level.
\n'),(37471,1016,405063,405249,'(a) Each player has an activity level, whichActivity is either a stuck player switch with values active or inactive. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. inactive.
\n
\n(b) Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e is active."Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively.
\n
\n(c) AA player may change flip eir activity level by announcing that activity, unless e does so, provided that a week has passed since e last changed eir activity level. done so within the past week.
\n
\n(d) InactiveInactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action.
\n
\n(e) ThisThis rule takes precedence over each all other rule rules that regulates activity levels and regulate activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level. activity.
\n'),(37472,1016,405249,405598,'Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and inactive.
\n
\n"Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively.
\n
\nA player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the past week.
\n
\nA player may, with Support and without 2 Objections, flip the activity of another player to inactive, if that other player has not made a public post in the last 30 days. A player made inactive by this method becomes active immediately upon eir next public post.
\n
\nInactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity.
\n'),(37473,1021,496057,496058,' than 1. 1 or greater than 4.
\n
\nA Rule which has a Mutability Index of 1 is also known as "Mutable"; a Rule which has a Mutability Index of Unanimity is also known as "Immutable". All other Rules are known as "Semimutable".
\n'),(37474,1021,496058,496059,'Every Rule shall haveLet there be, associated with it each Rule, an Index known as its called that Rule\'s Mutability Index. No The Mutability Index of a Rule may have is a part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can change a Rule\'s Mutability Index less than 1 or greater than 4. Index.
\n
\nAThe Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which has a would do so does not have legal effect.
\n
\nA Rule whose Mutability Index of is 1 is also known as "Mutable"; a "Mutable" Rule. A Rule which has a whose Mutability Index of is Unanimity is also known as "Immutable". an "Immutable" Rule. All other Rules are known as "Semimutable". "Semimutable" Rules.
\n'),(37475,1021,496059,496060,'Let there be, associated with each Rule, an Index called that Rule\'s Mutability Index. The Mutability Index of a Rule is a part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can change a Rule\'s Mutability Index.
\n
\nThe Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which would do so does not have legal effect.
\n
\n Rule. A Rule whose Mutability Index is Unanimity is known as an "Immutable" Rule. All All other Rules are known as "Semimutable" Rules.
\n'),(37476,1021,496060,496061,'Let there be, associated with each Rule, an Index called that Rule\'s Mutability Index. The Mutability Index of a Rule is a part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can change a Rule\'s Mutability Index.
\n
\nThe Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which would do so does not have legal effect.
\n
\nA Rule whose Mutability Index is 1 is known as a "Mutable" Rule. All other Rules are known as "Semimutable" Rules.
\n'),(37477,1023,404401,404892,'Whenever a Player is required to perform an action "as soon as possible", then e is required to perform the action within a week.
\n
\nA Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.
\n
\nThis Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a penalty.
\n
\n to Inactive non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.
\n'),(37478,1023,404892,405062,'Whenever a Player is requiredA requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible", then e possible" is required a requirement to perform the action within a week.
\n
\nAIf a Player who fails to observe this requirement such a requirement, and no other Rule defines a penalty for the failure, then the Player commits the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. Tardiness, which may be reported by any Player.
\n
\n not deprive prevent late actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines from taking effect, but merely penalizes the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a penalty. Player for being late.
\n
\nOther Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.
\n'),(37479,1023,405062,405695,'A requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the action within a week.The following terms are defined:
\n
\nIf a Player fails to observe such a requirement, and no other Rule defines a penalty for- Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the failure, then first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Player commits Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Class 1 Infraction Agoran month of Tardiness, which may be reported by any Player. January begins.
\n
\nThis Rule does not prevent late actions from taking effect, but merely penalizes- A requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the Player for being late. action within seven days.
\n
\nOther Rules may grant extensions of- The term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number".
\n
\n- The term "random" shall mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the penalty-free period possible outcomes is reasonably close to non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule. that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n'),(37480,1023,405695,405830,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n- Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.(a) The term "number" shall mean "real number".
\n
\n- A requirement to perform an action(b) The phrase "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the action within shall mean "within seven days. days".
\n
\n-(c) The term "number" "random" shall be interpreted as "real number". mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n-(d) The term "random" "paragraph" shall mean a choice drawn with subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(3) Units are considered in a tree hierarchy, interpreting the original body of text as a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes depth-first search. The root is reasonably close empty, the unbulleted units are its children, and the bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to that required nested levels of the tree).
\n
\n(4) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified. minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(e) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37481,1023,405830,405933,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n(a) The term "number" shall mean "real number".
\n
\n(b) The phrase "as soon as possible" shall mean "within seven days".
\n
\n(c) The term "random" shall mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n(d) The term "paragraph" shall mean a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(3) Units are considered in a tree hierarchy, interpreting the original body Each unit of text as a depth-first search. The root is empty, the document has a level as follows. All unbulleted units are its children, and have level 1. Each bulleted unit has level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to it is nested levels of the tree). inside.
\n
\n A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between those units which has level no greater than that of the unit appearing first.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(e) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37482,1023,405933,406040,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n "number" shall mean means "real number".
\n
\n possible" shall mean means "within seven days".
\n
\n "random" shall mean means a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n "paragraph" shall mean means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(e) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37483,1023,406040,406056,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n The term "number" phrase "as soon as possible" means "real number". "within seven days".
\n
\n The phrase "as soon as possible" term "random" means "within seven days". a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n term "random" means a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n(d) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(e)(d) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37484,1023,406056,406399,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n(a) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days".
\n
\n term "random" means a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n(c) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d)(c) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37485,1023,406399,406092,''),(37486,1023,406092,406569,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n The phrase phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" means mean "within seven days".
\n
\n(b) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37487,1023,406569,497381,'The following terms are defined:
\n
\n(a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" mean "within seven days".
\n
\n(b) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows:
\n
\n(1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text.
\n
\n(2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation.
\n
\n(7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(c) Agoran epochs:
\n
\n(1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
\n
\n(2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n
\n(3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month.
\n
\n(4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin.
\n
\n(5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins.
\n'),(37488,1025,496063,496064,'Let there be an Entity called the Kudo (plural: Kudos).A Player\'s Honor is a measure of that Player\'s honor, measured in Kudos. The amount Honor of Kudos a each Player holds is called eir Honour. All Players possess at all times an integral number of Kudos not less a non-negative integer. A Player whose Honor is greater than 0. 30 Kudos is a Samurai.
\n
\nA new Player, or a Player with no Kudo record startsNew Players join the Game with an Honor of 20 Kudos. If a Player is deregistered but returns re-registers within three months, months of leaving Agora, e starts with the same number of Kudos Honor e had when e left. If e returns after a longer time than three months, e is treated as at deregistration. Otherwise, a new re-registering Player starts with respect to Kudos. the same Honor as a New Player.
\n'),(37489,1030,404408,405755,'If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n the precedence determining precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence.
\n
\nIf two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n
\ndeference 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."
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37490,1030,405755,406103,' lower Number ID number takes precedence.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.
\n
\ndeference 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."
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37491,1036,404478,405160,'As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nA Proposal\'s Distribution Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ of Papyri. TheThe base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but this may be altered by other Rules. Rules as long as it remains a positive integer.
\n'),(37492,1042,404419,404783,'Each Player player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a Player player registers or posts to a Public Forum, or a new Player registers, public forum, that Player player is Noisy.
\n
\nAny PlayerA player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused another Player player to become Quiet within the last 24 hours can may cause another Active Noisy Player player to become Quiet by stating that sending a message to a public forum in which e is doing so, identifies the player and clearly identifying states that Player, in a Public Forum. If e causes that player to become Quiet. Whenever a Player player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player weeks or has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.
\n
\nAny Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by player may publicly alleging allege that the Silent Player some other player has abandoned the game. A Player player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny that the Player is a Zombie. allegation.
\n
\nIf a Speaker has abandoned the game, allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order:
\n
\n(i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment, to be detected Abandonment and reported by any Player. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. The previous Speaker then becomes a Zombie. Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) the Silent player is deregistered.
\n
\nThe Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37493,1042,404783,404894,'Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is Noisy.
\n
\n two weeks or has been weeks, Inactive continuously for two months, or Frozen continuously for two years, e becomes Silent.
\n
\nAny player may publicly allege that some other player has abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny the allegation.
\n
\nIf the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order:
\n
\n(i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) the Silent player is deregistered.
\n
\nThe Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37494,1042,404894,405064,'Each(a) Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, noisy, quiet, or Silent, silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is Noisy. noisy.
\n
\nA(b) A player who has not within quietened another player in the most recent past 24 hours caused another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy player to become Quiet do so by sending a message to a public forum in which e identifies publically identifying the player and states stating that e causes that player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, Inactive continuously for two months, or Frozen continuously for two years, e becomes Silent. quiet.
\n
\nAny player may publicly allege that some other player has abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that(c) If a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm been quiet continuously for one month, or deny the allegation. inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nIf the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order:
\n
\n(i) if the Silent(d) Any player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime may publish a Notice of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the Speaker-Elect game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) invalid if the Silent player identified in it is deregistered.
\n
\nThe Silent player shall be deemed not, or ceases to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation. be, silent.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37495,1042,405064,405088,'(a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is noisy.
\n
\n another active, noisy player in the past 24 hours may do so cause another active, noisy player to become quiet by publically identifying the player and stating that e causes that player to become quiet.
\n
\n(c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\n(d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37496,1042,405088,405218,'(a) Each playerNoisiness is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that stuck player is noisy. switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent.
\n
\n(b) AA non-noisy player who has not quietened another active, becomes noisy player in the past 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player to become quiet by publically identifying the player and stating that whenever e causes that player posts to become quiet. a public forum.
\n
\n(c) If aA player may flip another player\'s noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously done so for three months, e becomes silent. another player within the past 24 hours.
\n
\n(d) AnyIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37497,1042,405218,405239,''),(37498,1042,405239,405503,'Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent.
\n
\nA non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public forum.
\n
\nAAn active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours.
\n
\nIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37499,1042,405503,405520,'Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent.
\n
\nThe noisiness of an active player may not be changed if e has posted to a public forum in the past 120 hours.
\n
\nA non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public forum.
\n
\nAn active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours.
\n
\nIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37500,1042,405520,405094,'Noisiness is a stuck(a) Each player switch with values is always noisy, quiet, and silent. or silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is noisy.
\n
\nThe noisiness of an active(b) A player may not be changed if e who has posted to a public forum not quietened another active, noisy player in the past 120 hours. 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player to become quiet by publically identifying the player and stating that e causes that player to become quiet.
\n
\nA non-noisy(c) If a player becomes noisy whenever has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e posts to a public forum. becomes silent.
\n
\nAn active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours.
\n
\nIf a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.
\n
\nAny(d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.
\n
\n(unattributed) Mar. 30 2000
\n'),(37501,1044,496065,496066,' shall record all keep track of which Unique Patent Titles have been awarded, and the people to whom they are awarded. have been awarded, and shall publish this information in the Registrar\'s Report.
\n
\nA Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to award the Unique Patent Title to the specified Player. Such a Directive shall clearly state the Unique Patent Title to be awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall receive the Unique Title. The Proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1.
\n'),(37502,1044,496066,496067,'There shall be a subset of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent Titles. A Unique Patent Title is awarded to a single person, at the same time as the creation of the Unique Patent Title; no other person may ever hold that Patent Title. The Registrar shall keep track of which Unique Patent Titles have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, and shall publish this information in the Registrar\'s Report.
\n
\n Unique Title. The Proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1. Title.
\n'),(37503,1044,496067,496068,' Patent Title. The Registrar shall keep track of which Unique Patent Titles have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, and shall publish this information in the Registrar\'s Report. Title.
\n
\nA Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to award the Unique Patent Title to the specified Player. Such a Directive shall clearly state the Unique Patent Title to be awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall receive the Unique Title.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Unique Patent Titles as part of the Gold Pages.
\n'); INSERT INTO `diffs` VALUES (37504,1044,496068,496069,'There shall beLet there exist a subset class of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent Titles. A Unique Patent Title is awarded to a single person, at the same time as the creation of the Unique Patent Title; no other At most one person may ever hold that Patent Title.
\n
\nA Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to award the specific Unique Patent Title to the specified Player. Such a Directive shall clearly state the Unique at any one time. Unique Patent Title to be awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall receive Titles are the Unique Title.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Unique same as Patent Titles as part of the Gold Pages. in all other respects.
\n'),(37505,1044,496069,496070,'Let there exist a class of Patent Titles known asEach Unique Patent Titles. At most one Title is a Patent Title. If a person may hold is awarded a specific Unique Patent Title at Title, then it shall automatically be revoked from any one time. Unique Patent Titles are the same as Patent Titles in all other respects. person already holding that Title.
\n'),(37506,1044,496070,496071,' already holding Bearing that Title.
\n'),(37507,1044,496071,404594,''),(37508,1044,404594,405617,'Each UniqueA Patent Title is a Patent Title. unique when the rules say it is. If a person is awarded a Unique unique Patent Title, then it the Herald shall automatically be revoked revoke it as soon as possible from any person already Bearing that Title. Title.
\n
\nThe following are Unique Patent Titles:
\n
\n(a) Robespierre, which shall be awarded to the Player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt succeeds.
\n
\n(b) Miscreant, which shall be awarded to a Player who has at least ten Blots and has a greater number of Blots than any other Player, if there is such a Player. It shall automatically be revoked if either condition becomes false.
\n
\n(c) Pugachev, which shall be awarded to the player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.
\n
\n(d) Manouchian, which shall be awarded to the player who called for a Revolt and deregistered before the Registrar announced that the Revolt succeeded.
\n'),(37509,1044,405617,496073,'A Patent Title is unique when the rules say it is. If a person is awarded a unique Patent Title, then the Herald shall revoke it as soon as possible from any person already Bearing that Title.
\n
\nThe following are Unique Patent Titles:
\n
\n(a) Robespierre, which shall be awarded to the Player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt succeeds.
\n
\n(b) Miscreant, which shall be awarded to a Player who has at least ten Blots and has a greater number of Blots than any other Player, if there is such a Player. It shall automatically be revoked if either condition becomes false.
\n
\n(c) Pugachev, which shall be awarded to the player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.
\n
\n(d) Manouchian, which shall be awarded to the player who called for a Revolt and deregistered before the Registrar announced that the Revolt succeeded.
\n'),(37510,1047,496074,496075,'The playerWhen a Proposal made by some Player is adopted unanimously (that is, no votes are cast AGAINST it), the Player who most recently proposed the Proposal is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, unless that Player already holds the Title. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award of this Title and reporting it to the Registrar.
\n
\nWhen a proposal which passed unanimously shall hold Player is awarded the title Patent Title of Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist, one Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer.
\n'),(37511,1047,496075,496076,' of Zeitgeist, unless that Player already holds the Title. Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award of this Title and reporting it to the Registrar.
\n
\nWhen a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer.
\n'),(37512,1047,496076,496077,' it), and the Player who proposed the Proposer of that Proposal is a Player, then that Proposal\'s Proposer is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award of this Title and reporting it to the Registrar.
\n
\nWhen a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer.
\n'),(37513,1047,496077,496078,' the Proposal is not a Disinterested Proposal, and the Proposer of that Proposal is a Player, then that Proposal\'s Proposer is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award of this Title and reporting it to the Registrar.
\n
\nWhen a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer.
\n'),(37514,1047,496078,496079,'When a an Interested Proposal made Proposed by some Player is adopted unanimously (that is, with no votes are cast AGAINST it), and the Proposal is not a Disinterested Proposal, and the Proposer of that Proposal is a Player, then it, that Proposal\'s Proposer Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award of this Title and reporting it to the Registrar. awarding of this Patent Title.
\n
\nWhen a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer.
\n'),(37515,1047,496079,496080,'When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted with no votes cast AGAINST it, that Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.
\n
\n one Extra Vote Voting Token is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer.
\n'),(37516,1047,496080,496081,'When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted with no votes cast AGAINST it, that Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.
\n
\n one Voting Token P-Note is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer.
\n'),(37517,1047,496081,496082,'When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted with no votes cast AGAINST it, that Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.
\n
\n Zeitgeist, the Assessor shall pay out one P-Note is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this transfer. Player.
\n'),(37518,1047,496082,496083,' it, and at least three different voting entities voted for it, that Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.
\n
\nWhen a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, the Assessor shall pay out one P-Note to that Player.
\n'),(37519,1047,496083,496084,'When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted with no votes cast AGAINST it, and at least three different voting entities voted for it, that Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.
\n
\nWhen a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, the Assessor shall pay out one P-Note to that Player.
\n'),(37520,1047,496084,496085,'When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted with no votes cast AGAINST it, and at least three different voting entities voted for it, that Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. The Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.
\n'),(37521,1048,496086,496087,' Rule Catories Categories must be listed, along with a brief description, whether or not any Rules currently are assigned to the Category.
\n
\nWhenever a new Rule is added, it is assigned to the most appropriate Category in the opinion of the Rulekeepor, who must choose from existing Categories. Alternatively, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new Category, if this is permitted by other Rules. Once e assigns a Rule to a Category, e may not change it except as provided by other Rules.
\n
\nHowever, if the Proposal itself stipulates a specific Category, as provided for by other Rules, the Rulekeepor is required to abide by this, if it is a valid defined Category. Also, a Rule\'s Category may be changed by a type of Proposal defined in other Rules.
\n'),(37522,1048,496087,496088,'Whenever the Rulekeepor publishesThe mandated weekly posting of the complete Rule Set, e Ruleset shall do so be done in the "Logical Rule Set Format". In this format, each Rule is assigned to a principal Category, and the Rules are grouped according to their Category. Within a Category, the ordering of Rules is decided by the Rulekeepor. All existing Rule Categories must be listed, along with a brief description, whether or not any Rules currently are assigned to the Category.
\n
\nWhenever a new Rule is added, it is assigned to the most appropriate Category in the opinion of the Rulekeepor, who must choose from existing Categories. Alternatively, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new Category, if this is permitted by other Rules. Once e assigns a Rule to a Category, e may not change it except as provided by other Rules.
\n
\nHowever, if the Proposal itself stipulates a specific Category, as provided for by other Rules, the Rulekeepor is required to abide by this, if it is a valid defined Category. Also, a Rule\'s Category may be changed by a type of Proposal defined in other Rules.
\n'),(37523,1048,496088,496089,'The mandated weekly postingThere is a format of the Ruleset shall be done in known as the "Logical Rule Set Format". Logical Ruleset. In this format, each Rule is assigned to a principal Rule Category, and the Rules are grouped according to their Category. Within Within a Category, the ordering of Rules is decided by the Rulekeepor. All existing Rule Categories must be listed, along with a brief description, whether or not any even if no Rules currently are currently assigned to the Category.
\n
\nWheneverA Rule Change that Creates a new Rule is added, it is assigned to the most appropriate may specify an existing Category in to which the opinion of new Rule will be assigned. If it does not, the Rulekeepor, who must Rulekeepor shall choose from existing Categories. Alternatively, the new Rule\'s Category. When doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new Category, if this is permitted by other Rules. Once e assigns a Rule to a Category, e may not change it except as provided by other Rules. Category.
\n
\nHowever, if the Proposal itself stipulates a specific Category,The Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as provided for by other Rules, e sees fit.
\n
\nIf the Rulekeepor is required to abide by this, if it is a valid defined Category. Also, a Rule\'s Category may be changed by creates or removes a type of Proposal defined Category, e must announce it in other Rules. the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent publication of the Logical Ruleset.
\n'),(37524,1048,496089,496090,'There is a format of the Ruleset known as the Logical Ruleset. In this format, each Rule is assigned to a Rule Category, and the Rules are grouped according to their Category. Within a Category, the ordering of Rules is decided by the Rulekeepor. All existing Rule Categories must be listed, along with a brief description, even if no Rules are currently assigned to the Category.
\n
\nA Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new Category.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.
\n
\nIf the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must announce it in the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent publication of the Logical Ruleset.
\n'),(37525,1048,496090,496091,'A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new Category.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.
\n
\nIf the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must announce it in the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent publication of the Logical Ruleset.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is authorized to change the name of a Rule Category or change the Category to which a Rule is assigned Without Objection.
\n'),(37526,1048,496091,404590,'A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new Category.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.
\n
\n must publicly announce it in the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent publication of the Logical Ruleset.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is authorized to change the name of a Rule Category or change the Category to which a Rule is assigned Without Objection.
\n'),(37527,1048,404590,496093,'A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new Category.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.
\n
\nIf the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must publicly announce it no later than the first subsequent publication of the Logical Ruleset.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is authorized to change the name of a Rule Category or change the Category to which a Rule is assigned Without Objection.
\n'),(37528,1051,404588,404838,'There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility itThe Rulekeepor is to maintain a list an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the text of all the Rules rules of Agora.
\n
\n Rulekeepor\'s Weekly Report includes shall include the Short Logical Ruleset. Eir The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report includes shall include the Full Logical Ruleset.
\n
\nsubstantial (unattributed)
\n'),(37529,1051,404838,406269,'The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.
\n
\n Weekly Report shall include report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report shall include report includes the Full Logical Ruleset. Ruleset.
\n
\n
\n
\nsubstantial (unattributed)
\n'),(37530,1052,496094,496095,' be created. The Proposal containing such a Directive must have an Adoption Index of at least 2. created.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall include all existing Categories in the publication of the Logical Rule Set, even if a given Category contains no Rules.
\n'),(37531,1054,496096,496097,' new Category. The Proposal containing such a Directive must have an Adoption Index of at least 2. Category.
\n'),(37532,1061,496098,496099,' the Speaker, Promotor, and any penalties which are the direct result of voting on such Proposals are halved; all of these shall be reported to the Scorekeepor by the Speaker. Promotor.
\n'),(37533,1061,496099,496100,' Points from the Bank for each week in which e submits one or more Proposals to the Promotor, and Promotor. These transfers are to be reported by the Promotor no later than the time at which any such Proposals are distributed. Furthermore, any penalties which are the direct result of voting on such Proposals are halved; all of these shall be reported to the Scorekeepor by the Promotor. halved.
\n'),(37534,1070,496101,496102,'There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be created.
\n
\n one. In any Nomic Week in which Foreign Policy activity occurs, the the Ambassador shall receive a salary of two (2) Points.
\n
\nDirectives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner. A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1.
\n
\n Policy Directives. Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least once per Nomic Game Week.
\n'),(37535,1070,496102,496103,'There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be created.
\n
\n one. the The Ambassador shall receive a salary of two (2) Points.
\n
\nDirectives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner. A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1.
\n
\nThe Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least once per Nomic Game Week.
\n'),(37536,1070,496103,496104,'There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be created.
\n
\n Policy developements developments of that Nomic Week or the previous one. The Ambassador shall receive a salary of two (2) Points.
\n
\nDirectives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner. A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1.
\n
\nThe Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least once per Nomic Game Week.
\n'),(37537,1070,496104,496105,'There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be created.
\n
\nThe Ambassador shall report to the Public Forum once a Nomic Week on any new Foreign Policy developments of that Nomic Week or the previous one. The Ambassador shall receive a salary of two (2) Points.
\n
\n specified manner. A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1. manner.
\n
\nThe Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least once per Nomic Game Week.
\n'),(37538,1079,496106,496107,'All occurrencesWhen a rule requires a random choice, that choice shall be made among all the possible choices with equal probability.
\n
\nBecause of the word "random" or forms impossibility of it finding a truly random test, "equal", for the purposes of the above statement, shall be taken to mean "any one of "reasonably close to equal". It is up to common sense to determine what is reasonably close to equal; however, the choices burden of proof of a method\'s randomness lies with equally distributed possibility the Player who used the method.
\n
\nThe probability of a Platonic solid or coin, which is not specially weighted, falling on any given face is, for each choice". the purposes of this Rule, close enough to equal to satisfy the above requirement.
\n'),(37539,1079,496107,496108,'When a rule requires a random choice, that choice shall be made among all the possible choices with equal probability.
\n
\nBecause of the impossibility of finding a truly random test, "equal", for the purposes of the above statement, shall mean "reasonably close to equal". It is up to common sense to determine what is reasonably close to equal; however, the burden of proof of a method\'s randomness lies with the Player who used the method.
\n
\nThe probability of a Platonic solid or coin, which is not specially weighted, falling on any given face is, for the purposes of this Rule, close enough to equal to satisfy the above requirement.
\n
\nThe Speaker shall make all random determinations required by the Rules except when the Rules specify another party to make the determination.
\n'),(37540,1079,496108,404402,'When a rule requires a random choice, that choice shall be made among all the possible choices with equal probability.
\n
\nBecause of the impossibility of finding a truly random test, "equal", for the purposes of the above statement, shall mean "reasonably close to equal". It is up to common sense to determine what is reasonably close to equal; however, the burden of proof of a method\'s randomness lies with the Player who used the method.
\n
\nThe probability of a Platonic solid or coin, which is not specially weighted, falling on any given face is, for the purposes of this Rule, close enough to equal to satisfy the above requirement.
\n
\nThe Speaker shall make all random determinations required by the Rules except when the Rules specify another party to make the determination.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37541,1079,404402,405021,'When(a) When a rule Rule requires a random choice, that choice to be made, then the choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution among all the possible choices with equal probability. outcomes the Rules provide for making that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall be used.
\n
\nBecause of(b) Where the impossibility of finding a truly random test, "equal", for the purposes of the above statement, shall mean "reasonably close to equal". It is up to common sense to determine what Rules do not indicate who is reasonably close required to equal; however, the burden of proof of make a method\'s randomness lies with the Player who used particular random choice, it shall be made by the method. Speaker.
\n
\nThe probability of(c) When making a Platonic solid or coin, which is not specially weighted, falling random choice as required by the Rules, a Player may rely on any given face is, for physical or computational process whose probability distribution among the purposes of this Rule, possible outcomes is reasonably close enough to equal to satisfy that required by the above requirement. Rules.
\n
\nThe Speaker shall make all random determinations required by(d) For the Rules except when purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid or coin that is not specially weighted has a probability distribution among the Rules specify another party possible outcomes that is reasonably close to make the determination. uniform.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)(e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of whether a method\'s probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.
\n'),(37542,1079,405021,405427,'(a) When a Rule requires a random choice to be made, then the choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution among the possible outcomes the Rules provide for making that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall be used.
\n
\n(b) Where the Rules do not indicate who is required to make a particular random choice, it shall be made by the Speaker.
\n
\n(c) When making a random choice as required by the Rules, a Player may rely on any physical or computational process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.
\n
\n solid or coin that is not specially weighted has a probability distribution among the possible outcomes that is reasonably close to uniform.
\n
\n(e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of whether a method\'s probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.
\n'),(37543,1079,405427,496111,'(a) When a Rule requires a random choice to be made, then the choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution among the possible outcomes the Rules provide for making that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall be used.
\n
\n(b) Where the Rules do not indicate who is required to make a particular random choice, it shall be made by the Speaker.
\n
\n(c) When making a random choice as required by the Rules, a Player may rely on any physical or computational process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.
\n
\n(d) For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid that is not specially weighted has a probability distribution among the possible outcomes that is reasonably close to uniform.
\n
\n(e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of whether a method\'s probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.
\n'),(37544,1274,496113,496114,'Let there be a class of Entities known as "Indices" (singular: "Index"). An Index shall have a value, which is either a non-negative real number or the special value "Unanimity".
\n
\nLet Indices be ordered such that for any two Indices X and Y, XAn Index of Unanimity is greater than Y if and only if either both X and Y are real numbers and X any other Index. When comparing other Indices, the Index which is numerically greater than Y, or X is the special value Unanimity and Y is a real number. greater Index.
\n'),(37545,1274,496114,496115,'Let there beAn Index (plural: Indices) is a class Nomic Property. The value of Entities known as "Indices" (singular: "Index"). An an Index shall have a value, which is be either a non-negative real number or the special value "Unanimity". Unanimity.
\n
\nAn Index of Unanimity is greater than any other Index. When comparing other Indices, the Index which is numerically greater is the greater Index.
\n'),(37546,1274,496115,404398,''),(37547,1274,404398,496116,'An Index (plural: Indices) is a Nomic Property. The value of an Index shall be either a non-negative real number or the special value Unanimity.
\n
\nAn Index of Unanimity is greater than any other Index. When comparing other Indices, the Index which is numerically greater is the greater Index.
\n'),(37548,1322,496119,496121,''),(37549,1322,496121,496122,'EveryA given Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called its Power, which determines its ability to not take effect.
\n
\nThe Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be effect unless the Mutability Index Power of the Rule in instrument which the Rule Change specified it is contained.
\n
\nThe Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be at least as great as the Adoption Index greater of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained.
\n
\nNo Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than the current Mutation Index Power of the Rule it seeks to change, if any, be Changed (if any) and the Mutation Index that Power the Rule would possess have after the change, if any. Change (if any).
\n'),(37550,1322,496122,404499,''),(37551,1322,404499,405588,'A given Rule Change shall not take effect unless the Power of the instrument which specified it is at least proposal can generally, as great as the greater part of its effect, modify the current Power power, title, or text of the Rule a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification to be Changed (if any) void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the Power quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the Rule would have after purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
\n
\nWhen a rule is modified, the Change (if any). Rulekeepor shall generally record an increase by one in its revision number. If a single proposal modifies a regulation several times, the Rulekeepor shall only record a single increase of its revision number.
\n
\nThis rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be modified.
\n'),(37552,1322,405588,496120,'A proposal can generally, as part of its effect, modify the power, title, or text of a ruleEvery Rule Change shall have associated with power no greater than it an Index, called its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than Power, which determines its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification ability 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. take effect.
\n
\nWhenThe Power of a rule is modified, the Rulekeepor non-Proposed Rule Change shall generally record an increase by one in its revision number. If a single proposal modifies a regulation several times, be the Rulekeepor shall only record a single increase Mutability Index of its revision number. the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained.
\n
\nThis rule providesThe Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index of the only mechanism by Proposal in which rules can be modified. the Rule Change is contained.
\n
\nNo Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after the change, if any.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37553,1322,496120,496124,'Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called its Power, which determines its ability to take effect.
\n
\nThe Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained.
\n
\nThe Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained.
\n
\nNo Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after the change, if any.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37554,1339,496126,496128,'There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating, Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the result of the effect or action of a Rule.
\n
\nAll Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following constraints:
\n
\nAn individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly identify the Number of the Rule to be affected.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not specified, it shall be 1.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to an appropriate category of eir own choice.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability Index.
\n
\n and unambigiously unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would permit such differences, even if the differences would be considered inconsequential by such Rules.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not have any legal force.
\n'),(37555,1339,496128,496129,'There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating, Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the result of the effect or action of a Rule.
\n
\nAll Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following constraints:
\n
\nAn individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.
\n
\n clearly and unambiguously identify the Number of the Rule to be affected.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not specified, it shall be 1.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to an appropriate category of eir own choice.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability Index.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would permit such differences, even if the differences would be considered inconsequential by such Rules.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not have any legal force.
\n'),(37556,1339,496129,496130,'There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating, Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the result of the effect or action of a Rule.
\n
\nAll Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following constraints:
\n
\nAn individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly and unambiguously identify the Rule to be affected.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not specified, it shall be 1.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to an appropriate category of eir own choice.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability Index.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would permit such differences, even if the differences would be considered inconsequential by such Rules.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not have any legal force.
\n'),(37557,1339,496130,496131,'There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule ChangeExact precision is a Rule Change which appears required in a Proposal, and which, insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect specification of Creating, Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as defined elsewhere Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the Rules, directly as a result of the passage specification of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules permit causes it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the result of the effect or action of a Rule. be void and without effect.
\n
\nAll Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following constraints:
\n
\nAn individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly and unambiguously identify the Rule to be affected.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability Index is specified it must be greater thanVariations in whitespace or equal to 1. If the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not specified, it shall be 1.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule must clearly specify capitalization in the new value quotation of the Rule\'s Mutability Index.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If the in an existing Rule Change quotes old text which is to be removed or replaced with new text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would permit such differences, even if the differences would be considered inconsequential by such Rules.
\n
\nAny Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not have any legal force. create an irregularity or ambiguity, for the purpose of this Rule. Any other variation, however, does.
\n'),(37558,1339,496131,404469,''),(37559,1339,404469,496132,'Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect.
\n
\nVariations in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of text in an existing Rule to be removed or replaced does not create an irregularity or ambiguity, for the purpose of this Rule. Any other variation, however, does.
\n'),(37560,1349,496133,404505,''),(37561,1349,404505,496134,'The Rulekeepor shall give each newly-enacted Rule a Number for reference when it is created. The Number of a Rule shall be the least integer greater than all other Numbers previously given to a Rule (including numbers assigned to Rules later determined to have been incorrectly enacted), or 301, whichever is greater.
\n
\nOnce a Rule has been given a Rule Number, it shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules.
\n'),(37562,1365,496135,496136,'Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic community, a Concurring or a Disenting Opinion may be filed in writen format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:
\n
\n(i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora Conventions*.
\n
\n(ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the opinion.
\n
\n(iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the Courts within 1 Nomic Week.
\n
\n(iv) The opinion must be title as Concurring or Dissenting with the Judgement.
\n
\n to the to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring or Dissenting Opinions.
\n'),(37563,1365,496136,496137,'Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic community, a Concurring or a Disenting Opinion may be filed in writen format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:
\n
\n Agora Conventions*. Conventions.
\n
\n(ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the opinion.
\n
\n(iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the Courts within 1 Nomic Week.
\n
\n be title as entitled Concurring or Dissenting with the Judgement.
\n
\nOnce an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring or Dissenting Opinions.
\n'),(37564,1365,496137,496138,' a Disenting Dissenting Opinion may be filed in writen written format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:
\n
\n(i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora Conventions.
\n
\n(ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the opinion.
\n
\n(iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the Courts within 1 Nomic Week.
\n
\n(iv) The opinion must be entitled Concurring or Dissenting with the Judgement.
\n
\nOnce an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring or Dissenting Opinions.
\n'),(37565,1365,496138,496140,'Upon the distribution ofThere shall exist a legal judgement type of Application called an Application to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has the Nomic community, effect of annotating a Concurring Judgement or a Dissenting Opinion may be filed Dismissal in written format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or Dissenting Opinion a given Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have effect upon Execution, it must satisfy the following criteria: requirements:
\n
\n(i) The opinion* It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies. * It must be labelled as either a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion. * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the Appeals Court. * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, Judgements, and Game Custom. * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players. * It must be Executed no earlier than the submission of the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and Agora Conventions. no later than one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of that Judgement or Dismissal.
\n
\n(ii) The opinion must be sponsoredAn Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed by at least two active Agora players submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been Executed and having met all the sponsors must be listed on requirements for effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the opinion. Opinion.
\n
\n(iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the Courts within 1 Nomic Week.
\n
\n(iv) The opinion must be entitled Concurring or Dissenting with the Judgement.
\n
\nOnceOnce an opinion satisfies these components, Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed and takes effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the opinion Opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting Opinions the Opinion must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring or Dissenting Opinions. Dismissal.
\n'),(37566,1365,496140,496141,'There shall exist a type of Application called an Application to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has the effect of annotating a Judgement or Dismissal in a given Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have effect upon Execution, it must satisfy the following requirements:
\n
\n be labelled labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion. * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the Appeals Court. * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom. * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players. * It must be Executed no earlier than the submission of the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of that Judgement or Dismissal.
\n
\nAn Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed by submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been Executed and having met all the requirements for effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the Opinion.
\n
\nOnce an Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed and takes effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.
\n'),(37567,1365,496141,404564,'There shall exist a type of Application called an Application to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has the effect of annotating a Judgement or Dismissal in a given Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have effect upon Execution, it must satisfy the following requirements:
\n
\n* It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies. * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion. * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the Appeals Court. * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom. * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players. * It must be Executed no earlier than the submission of the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of that Judgement or Dismissal.
\n
\nAn Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed by submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been Executed and having met all the requirements for effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the Opinion.
\n
\nOnce an Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed and takes effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37568,1365,404564,404691,' upon Execution, submission, it must satisfy the following requirements:
\n
\n be Executed submitted no earlier than the submission of the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of that Judgement or Dismissal.
\n
\n is Executed submitted by submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been Executed submitted and having met all the requirements for effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the Opinion.
\n
\n is Executed submitted and takes effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37569,1365,404691,404952,' Judgement or Dismissal in a given Call for Judgement. In In order for such an Application to have effect upon submission, it must satisfy the following requirements:
\n
\n Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the Appeals Court. * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom. * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players. * It must be submitted no earlier than the submission of the Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of that Judgement or Dismissal. Judgement.
\n
\nAn Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted by submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been submitted and having met all the requirements for effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the Opinion.
\n
\n Legal Judgement or Dismissal. Judgement.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37570,1365,404952,405715,'There shall existTwo or more players may submit a type of Application called an Application to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has the effect of annotating a Judgement in Concurring or Dissenting Opinion for a given Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application CFJ trial or appeals decision, via a single application to have effect upon submission, it must satisfy the following requirements: Clerk of the Courts signed by all submittors.
\n
\n* ItThe opinion must clearly indicate include reference to which the CFJ it applies. * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion. * It must indicate whether and the Judgement particular judgement or appeals decision to which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the Appeals Court. * It must and be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom. * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players. * It must be submitted no earlier than the submission of the Judgement to which it applies, and no later than one week after the publication by the Clerk of or arugments for the Courts of that Judgement. opinion.
\n
\nAn Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted by submitting it to theThe Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been Courts shall publish any properly submitted and having met all the requirements for effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the Opinion.
\n
\nOnce an Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted and takes effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion append it to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must be appended to text of the Legal Judgement. legal judgement.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37571,1365,405715,405764,' all submittors. submitters.
\n
\n or arugments arguments for the opinion.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall publish any properly submitted Opinion and append it to the text of the legal judgement.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37572,1365,405764,405967,'Two or more playersA player may submit a Concurring or Dissenting Opinion opinion for a given CFJ trial or appeals decision, via a single application to the Clerk of the Courts signed by all submitters.
\n
\nThe decision with 1 Support. The opinion must include reference to the CFJ in question and the particular judgement or appeals decision to which clearly indicate that it applies and is an opinion to be appended to that CFJ. The opinion should be accompanied by reasons or arguments for the opinion.
\n
\nThe arguments. The Clerk of the Courts shall publish append any properly submitted Opinion and append it opinion to the text CFJ in question, along with a list of the legal judgement. Player who submitted that opinion and the player(s) who supported it.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37573,1365,405967,496139,'A player may submitUpon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic community, a Concurring or Dissenting opinion for a given CFJ trial or appeals decision with 1 Support. The opinion must reference the CFJ in question and clearly indicate that it is an opinion to be appended to that CFJ. The opinion should Dissenting Opinion may be accompanied by reasons or arguments. The Clerk of the Courts shall append any properly submitted opinion to the CFJ filed in question, along written format with a list the Clerk of the Player who submitted that opinion and Courts. The Concurring or Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the player(s) who supported it. following criteria:
\n
\n(unattributed)(i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora Conventions.
\n
\n(ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the opinion.
\n
\n(iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the Courts within 1 Nomic Week.
\n
\n(iv) The opinion must be entitled Concurring or Dissenting with the Judgement.
\n
\nOnce an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring or Dissenting Opinions.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37574,1365,496139,496147,'Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic community, a Concurring or a Dissenting Opinion may be filed in written format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:
\n
\n(i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora Conventions.
\n
\n(ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the opinion.
\n
\n(iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the Courts within 1 Nomic Week.
\n
\n(iv) The opinion must be entitled Concurring or Dissenting with the Judgement.
\n
\nOnce an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring or Dissenting Opinions.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37575,1367,496148,496150,''),(37576,1367,496150,496151,'There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with their name for any official or unofficial business if and only if that person currently possesses that Degree.
\n
\nPersons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess which Degrees.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default properties of Patent Titles.
\n
\n"Granting a Degree" and "awarding a Degree" are synonymous. A Player who has been awarded a Degree possesses that Degree.
\n'),(37577,1367,496151,496152,' Rule. A A person may use a Degree with their eir name for any official or unofficial business if and only if that person e currently possesses that Degree.
\n
\nPersons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess which Degrees.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default properties of Patent Titles.
\n
\n"Granting a Degree" and "awarding a Degree" are synonymous. A Player who has been awarded a Degree possesses that Degree.
\n'),(37578,1367,496152,496153,'There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with eir name for any official or unofficial business if and only if e currently possesses that Degree.
\n
\nPersons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess which Degrees.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default properties of Patent Titles.
\n
\n"Granting a Degree" and "awarding a Degree" are synonymous. A Player who has been awarded a Degree possesses that Degree.
\n'),(37579,1367,496153,496154,' currently possesses Bears that Degree.
\n
\n to possess Bear Degrees only as specified in the Rules. Once a person possesses Bears a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default properties of Patent Titles.
\n
\n Degree possesses Bears that Degree.
\n'),(37580,1367,496154,404598,''),(37581,1367,404598,405687,'There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as Degrees. AA Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with eir name for any official or unofficial business if and only if e currently Bears that Degree.
\n
\nPersons Persons may come to Bear Degrees only as specified in the Rules. Once a person Bears a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default properties of Patent Titles.
\n
\n"Granting a Degree" and "awarding a Degree"The following Degrees are synonymous. A Player who has been awarded a Degree Bears that Degree. hereby made legal:
\n
\n- 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)
\n
\nDegrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule, with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher.
\n'),(37582,1367,405687,496156,'A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such by a Rule. Persons may come to Bear Degrees onlyCertain patent titles are known as specified in the Rules. Once a person Bears a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever. degrees. The degrees are
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default properties of Patent Titles.- 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.)
\n
\nThe following DegreesDegrees are hereby made legal: ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher.
\n
\n- AssociateA degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and CANNOT be revoked once awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the action of Nomic (A.N.) - Bachelor an instrumennt with power greater than or equal to the power 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) this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way.
\n
\nDegrees shallA degree SHOULD be ranked in awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree (though not necessarily for the order they appear specific degree being awarded). A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or of nomic in this Rule, general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its originality and quality, with Degrees listed latest in regard to the Rule being ranked higher. rank of the degree to be awarded.
\n'),(37583,1367,496156,406284,'Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
\n
\n- 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.)
\n
\nDegrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher.
\n
\n an instrumennt instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way.
\n
\nA 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.
\n'),(37584,1367,406284,432261,'Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
\n
\n- 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.)
\n
\nDegrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher.
\n
\n awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power The awarding of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way. a degree is a secured change
\n
\nA 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.
\n'),(37585,1367,432261,496886,'Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
\n
\n- 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.)
\n
\nDegrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher.
\n
\n once awarded. The awarding of a degree is a secured change awarded.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n2007
\n'),(37586,1367,496886,496966,'Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
\n
\n- 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.)
\n
\nDegrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher.
\n
\nA degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and CANNOT be revoked once awarded.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n2007Degrees are generally awarded by proposals with adoption indices sufficiently high to award patent titles.
\n
\n2007 2008 November 2008
\n'),(37587,1367,496966,496149,'Certain patent titles areThere shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as degrees. The degrees are Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with their name for any official or unofficial business if and only if that person currently possesses that Degree.
\n
\n- 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.)Persons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever.
\n
\nDegrees are rankedThe Registrar shall note in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher. eir report which persons possess which Degrees.
\n
\nA degree CANNOT be awarded toThis Rule takes precedence over any person more than once, and CANNOT be revoked once awarded. Rule specifying default properties of Patent Titles.
\n
\nA degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree (thoughThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do 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.
\n
\nDegrees are generally awarded by proposals with adoption indices sufficiently high to award patent titles.
\n
\n2007 2008 November 2008 contain this sentence.
\n'),(37588,1367,496149,406063,'There shall exist a subset of the Patent TitlesCertain patent titles are known as Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with their name for any official or unofficial business if and only if that person currently possesses that Degree. degrees. The degrees are
\n
\nPersons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that Degree forever.- 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.)
\n
\nThe Registrar shall noteDegrees are ranked in eir report which persons possess which Degrees. the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence overA degree CANNOT be awarded to any Rule specifying default properties person more than once, and CANNOT be revoked once awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the action of Patent Titles. an instrumennt with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way.
\n
\nThis Rule defersA degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published a suitable thesis with explicit intent to all other Rules which do qualify for a degree (though not contain this sentence. 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.
\n'),(37589,1367,406063,496958,'Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
\n
\n- 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.)
\n
\nDegrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher.
\n
\n once awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the action of an instrumennt with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way. awarded.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n2007 2008
\n'),(37590,1368,496160,496161,'The following Degrees are hereby made legal:
\n
\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist) - Master of Nomic (M.N.) - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)
\n
\nDegrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule, with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher than Degrees listed earlier. The abbreviations in parenthesis are not part of the actual Degree.
\n'),(37591,1368,496161,496162,'The following Degrees are hereby made legal:
\n
\n- Associate of Nomic (A.N.) - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.) - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist) - Master of Nomic (M.N.) - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)
\n
\n in parenthesis parentheses are not part of the actual Degree.
\n'),(37592,1368,496162,404599,''),(37593,1368,404599,496163,'The following Degrees are hereby made legal:
\n
\n- Associate of Nomic (A.N.) - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.) - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist) - Master of Nomic (M.N.) - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)
\n
\nDegrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule, with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher than Degrees listed earlier. The abbreviations in parentheses are not part of the actual Degree.
\n'),(37594,1369,496164,496165,'There shall be a Nomic Entity known as a Thesis, plural Theses.
\n
\nAA Thesis (plura: Theses) shall be an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general. The topic should be substantially different from all other Theses previously approved, but this is not a requirement.
\n'),(37595,1369,496165,496166,' Thesis (plura: (plural: Theses) shall be an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general. The topic should be substantially different from all other Theses previously approved, but this is not a requirement.
\n'),(37596,1369,496166,404600,''),(37597,1369,404600,496167,'A Thesis (plural: Theses) shall be an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general. The topic should be substantially different from all other Theses previously approved, but this is not a requirement.
\n'),(37598,1370,496168,496169,'There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.
\n
\nA Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree. A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions specified in this Rule are met.
\n
\n intended receipient recipient of the Degree. - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to Person X. - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a copy of each Thesis written in this manner. - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)
\n
\nThe following are additional requirements for the awarding of individual Degrees.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Associate of Nomic: - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 1.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic: - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 1. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Master of Nomic: - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy: - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 3. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words. - The Proposal to Request a Degree must also contain a creative work whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.
\n'),(37599,1370,496169,496170,'There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.
\n
\nA Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree. A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions specified in this Rule are met.
\n
\nThe following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X): - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree. - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to Person X. - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a copy of each Thesis written in this manner. - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)
\n
\nThe following are additional requirements for the awarding of individual Degrees.
\n
\n Degree Associate Bachelor of Nomic: - The Voting Index of Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 1. 500 words.
\n
\n Degree Bachelor Master of Nomic: - The Voting minimum Adoption Index of the Proposal to Request necessary for such a Degree must be at least 1. Directive to take effect is 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\n Degree Master of Nomic: - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy: - The Voting minimum Adoption Index of the Proposal to Request necessary for such a Degree must be at least Directive to take effect is 3. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words. - The Proposal to Request a Degree must also contain a creative work whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.
\n'),(37600,1370,496170,496171,'There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.
\n
\nA Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree. A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions specified in this Rule are met.
\n
\nThe following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X): - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree. - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to Person X. - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a copy of each Thesis written in this manner. - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)
\n
\nThe following are additional requirements for the awarding of individual Degrees.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic: - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Master of Nomic: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\n must also contain clearly identify a creative work work, which has been published in the Public Forum, and whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.
\n'),(37601,1370,496171,496172,'There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.
\n
\nA Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree. A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions specified in this Rule are met.
\n
\nThe following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X): - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree. - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to Person X. - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a copy of each Thesis written in this manner. - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)
\n
\nThe following are additional requirements for the awarding of individual Degrees.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic: - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic History: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must contain a narrative covering significant events which have occurred in Agora within at least the last eight weeks.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Master of Nomic: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 3. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words. - The Proposal to Request a Degree must clearly identify a creative work, which has been published in the Public Forum, and whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.
\n'),(37602,1370,496172,496173,'There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.
\n
\nA Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree. A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions specified in this Rule are met.
\n
\nThe following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X): - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree. - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to Person X. - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a copy of each Thesis written in this manner. - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)
\n
\nThe following are additional requirements for the awarding of individual Degrees.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic: - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\n occurred at some prior point in Agora within at least the last eight weeks. history.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Master of Nomic: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 3. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words. - The Proposal to Request a Degree must clearly identify a creative work, which has been published in the Public Forum, and whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.
\n'),(37603,1370,496173,496174,'There shallA Degree is awarded by the operation of an instrument of sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be a legal Directive awarded, and its recipient. The sufficient Power required to Request award a Degree. Degree is determined by the Degree to be awarded. All conditions established by this and other Rules for the awarding of the named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be awarded.
\n
\nA Directive to Request aNo Degree must specify may be awarded to any recipient unless the intended recipient of has posted a Thesis to the Degree and Public Forum authored by eirself, along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Degree Thesis is being Requested and include any texts necessary to submitted with the awarding of that intent to qualify for a Degree. A person The Archivist shall receive retain a Degree if and only if the conditions specified copy of each Thesis posted in this Rule are met. manner.
\n
\nThe following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X): - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree. - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may Bachelor of Nomic shall not be awarded to Person X. - Person X sends a message to unless the Public Forum containing a Thesis authored by Person X submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and a statement explicitly associating unless the Thesis with instrument awarding the Proposal to Request a Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a copy Degree has Power of each Thesis written in this manner. - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.) at least 1.
\n
\nThe following are additional requirements Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be awarded unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events which have occured in Agora within at least the last eight weeks, and unless the instrument awarding the Degree has Power of individual Degrees. at least 2.
\n
\nTo receive theThe Degree Bachelor of Nomic: - The Thesis in Master of Nomic shall not be awarded unless the Proposal to Request a Thesis submitted for that Degree must be contains at least 500 words. words, and unless the instrument awarding the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\nTo receive theThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic History: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must Philosophy shall not be at least 500 words. - The Thesis in awarded unless the Proposal to Request a Degree must contain a narrative covering significant events which have occurred at some prior point in Agora history.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Master of Nomic: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect is 2. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at least 500 words.
\n
\nTo receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy: - The minimum Adoption Index necessary submitted for such a Directive to take effect is 3. - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a that Degree must be contains at least 500 words. - The Proposal to Request a Degree must clearly identify a creative work, which words, unless the intended recipient has been published also posted in the Public Forum, and Forum an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or Nomic in general. The author general, and unless the instrument awarding the Degree has Power of this work must be Person X. at least 3.
\n'),(37604,1370,496174,496175,' is awarded Granted by the operation of an instrument of sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be awarded, Granted, and its recipient. The sufficient Power required to award Grant a Degree is determined by the Degree to be awarded. Granted. All conditions established by this and other Rules for the awarding Granting of the named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be awarded. Granted.
\n
\n be awarded Granted to any recipient unless the recipient has posted a Thesis to the Public Forum authored by eirself, along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The Archivist shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this manner.
\n
\n be awarded Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument awarding Granting the Degree has Power of at least 1.
\n
\n be awarded Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events which have occured in Agora within at least the last eight weeks, and unless the instrument awarding Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\n be awarded Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument awarding Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\n be awarded Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also posted in the Public Forum an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general, and unless the instrument awarding Granting the Degree has Power of at least 3.
\n'),(37605,1370,496175,496176,'A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be Granted.
\n
\n The Archivist Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this manner.
\n
\nThe Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 1.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events which have occured in Agora within at least the last eight weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\nThe Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also posted in the Public Forum an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 3.
\n'),(37606,1370,496176,496177,'A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be Granted.
\n
\n by eirself, emself, along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this manner.
\n
\nThe Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 1.
\n
\n have occured occurred in Agora within at least the last eight weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\nThe Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also posted in the Public Forum an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 3.
\n'),(37607,1370,496177,404601,'A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be Granted.
\n
\n has posted published a Thesis to the Public Forum authored by emself, along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this manner.
\n
\nThe Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 1.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events which have occurred in Agora within at least the last eight weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\nThe Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 2.
\n
\n also posted in the Public Forum published an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 3.
\n'),(37608,1370,404601,404961,'A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree is Granted when e publishes a Thesis, authored by the operation of an instrument of sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant emself, along with a Degree statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is determined by being submitted with the Degree intent to be Granted. All conditions established by this and other Rules qualify for the Granting of the named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be Granted. a particular Degree.
\n
\nNo Degree may be Granted to any recipient unless the recipient has published a Thesis authored by emself, along with a statement explicitly indicating thatIf the Thesis Candidate is being submitted with a Player, e may choose the intent to qualify first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair; for a Degree. non-players, the Speaker will serve as Chair. The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy Chair\'s Opposite is defined as the Player who most often voted in the opposite manner of each Thesis posted the Chair in this manner. the last quarter; the Opposite becomes the second committee member. The Chair and eir Opposite will select, as soon as possible, and by mutual agreement, the third member of the committee.
\n
\nThe Degree of Bachelor Chair of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted Committee for a particular Candidate may grant that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting to the Degree has Power of at least 1. Candidate if and only if:
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted unless* the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events which have occurred Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in Agora within at least the last eight weeks, and unless the instrument Granting rules for the Degree has Power award of at least 2. that Degree;
\n
\nThe Degree* a majority of Master members of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the Thesis submitted for Committee agree that Degree contains at least 500 words, and unless the instrument Granting Thesis produced by the Candidate is worthy of the Degree has Power of at least 2. to be granted; and
\n
\nThe* fewer than seven years have passed since the time the Thesis Committee was formed.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis approved by its Thesis Committee.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor Associate of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted unless requires a Thesis of at least 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis submitted requirement for that any higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.
\n
\nThe Degree contains of Bachelor of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 500 words. A Candidate who already holds an BN Degree receives a credit of 250 words towards the Thesis requirement for any higher Degree.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic History requires a Thesis of at least 750 words and containing a narrative covering significant events which have occurred in Agora within the eight weeks prior to the publication of the Thesis.
\n
\nThe Degree of Master of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 750 words.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy requires a Thesis of at least 1000 words, unless and that the intended recipient candidate has also published an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 3. general.
\n'),(37609,1370,404961,405133,' a Thesis, Thesis Draft, authored by emself, along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis Draft is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a particular Degree. degree.
\n
\n choose another Player to be the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair; for non-players, Chair, with the Speaker will serve as Chair. The Chair\'s Opposite is defined as the consent. For non-players, or if no other Player who most often voted in the opposite manner of consents to be the Chair in the last quarter; the Opposite becomes within one month of draft submission, the second committee member. The Chair and eir Opposite Speaker will select, as soon serve as possible, and by mutual agreement, the third member of the committee. Chair.
\n
\nTheIf the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the Justiciar shall so appoint, unless the Chair or the Candidate is the Justiciar, in which case the Clerk of the Thesis Courts shall so appoint. The two Committee for members shall then select, by mutual consent, a particular third person who is not the Candidate may grant that Degree to be the Candidate if and only if: third Committee member.
\n
\n*The Committee shall examine the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules and eir Thesis to determine eir qualifications for the award Degree. The Candidate may publish a new Thesis Draft at any time, in response to Committee requests or of that Degree; eir own choosing, by indicating it is a new Thesis Draft for the same Degree.
\n
\n* a majority of members ofIf the Thesis Committee agree that is dissolved without granting a degree, the Thesis produced by Committee ceases to be a Committee, and the Candidate is worthy of the Degree ceases to be a Candidate, and any existant Thesis Draft must be republished and subject to a new Committee selection to be granted; and eligible for a Degree.
\n
\n* fewer than seven years have passed sinceThe Chair of a Thesis Committee may dissolve the time Committee without granting a degree, with the Thesis consent of at least one other Committee was formed. member. To so dissolve, the Chair must publish a notice of intent to dissolve at least 14 days before dissolving. The Candidate may so dissolve the Committee at any time by public announcement.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall retain a copy Chair of each Thesis approved by its the Thesis Committee. Committee for a particular Candidate may award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:
\n
\nThe Degree of Associate* the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for the award of Nomic requires that Degree; * a Thesis majority of at least 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives a credit members of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any higher Degree, unless Committee agree that the most recent Thesis draft produced by the Candidate also holds a BN Degree. is worthy of the Degree to be granted; and * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was formed.
\n
\nThe Degree of Bachelor of Nomic requiresEach Committee Member may have up to 14 days after a Thesis of at least 500 words. A Candidate who already holds an BN Degree receives is awarded to publish a credit of 250 words towards Commentary for the Thesis. After that time, the Chair shall publish the most recent Thesis Draft along with all Commentary so published. This combined publication shall become the Final Thesis. Upon publication of this Final Thesis requirement the Committee members cease to be Committee members for any higher Degree. that Thesis.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic History requires a Thesis of at least 750 words and containing a narrative covering significant events which have occurred in Agora within the eight weeks prior to the publication of the Thesis.
\n
\nThe Degree of Master of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 750 words.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy requires Rulekeepor shall retain a Thesis copy of at least 1000 words, and that the candidate has also published an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general. each Final Thesis.
\n'),(37610,1370,405133,405618,'A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a Thesis Draft, authored by emself, along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis Draft is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a particular degree.
\n
\nIf the Candidate is a Player, e may choose another Player to be the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the Chair\'s consent. For non-players, or if no other Player consents to be the Chair within one month of draft submission, the Speaker will serve as Chair.
\n
\nIf the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the Justiciar shall so appoint, unless the Chair or the Candidate is the Justiciar, in which case the Clerk of the Courts shall so appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third Committee member.
\n
\nThe Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Candidate may publish a new Thesis Draft at any time, in response to Committee requests or of eir own choosing, by indicating it is a new Thesis Draft for the same Degree.
\n
\n any existant existent Thesis Draft must be republished and subject to a new Committee selection to be eligible for a Degree.
\n
\nThe Chair of a Thesis Committee may dissolve the Committee without granting a degree, with the consent of at least one other Committee member. To so dissolve, the Chair must publish a notice of intent to dissolve at least 14 days before dissolving. The Candidate may so dissolve the Committee at any time by public announcement.
\n
\nThe Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:
\n
\n* the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for the award of that Degree; * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the most recent Thesis draft produced by the Candidate is worthy of the Degree to be granted; and * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was formed.
\n
\nEach Committee Member may have up to 14 days after a Degree is awarded to publish a Commentary for the Thesis. After that time, the Chair shall publish the most recent Thesis Draft along with all Commentary so published. This combined publication shall become the Final Thesis. Upon publication of this Final Thesis the Committee members cease to be Committee members for that Thesis.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Final Thesis.
\n'),(37611,1370,405618,405688,' Thesis Draft, authored by emself, along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis Draft is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a particular degree. degree. A Thesis (plural: Theses) is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general.
\n
\nIf theThe Candidate is a Player, e may shall choose another a Player other tham emself to be the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the Chair\'s consent. For non-players, or if no other Player consents to be the Chair within one month of draft submission, the Speaker will serve as Chair. consent.
\n
\n the Justiciar shall so appoint, unless the Chair or the Candidate is the Justiciar, in which case the Clerk of the Courts shall so appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third Committee member.
\n
\n The Candidate may publish a new Thesis Draft at any time, in response to Committee requests or Chair of eir own choosing, by indicating it is a new the Thesis Draft for Committee may award that Degree to the same Degree. Candidate if and only if:
\n
\nIf* the Committee is dissolved without granting Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the Rules for the award of that Degree; * a degree, majority of members of the Thesis Committee ceases to be a Committee, and agree that the Candidate ceases Thesis is worthy of the Degree to be a Candidate, and any existent Thesis Draft must granted. Attention should be republished paid to the originality and subject strength of the work, as well as the extent of the work with regard to the expectations of the particular degree. The committee may award a new lesser degree if appropriate; and * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee selection to be eligible for a Degree. was formed.
\n
\nThe Chair of a Thesis Committee may dissolve the Committee without granting a degree, with the consent of at least one other Committee member. To so dissolve, the Chair must publish a notice of intent to dissolve at least 14 days before dissolving. The Candidate may so dissolve the Committee at any time by public announcement.
\n
\nThe Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:
\n
\n* the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for the award of that Degree; * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the most recent Thesis draft produced by the Candidate is worthy of the Degree to be granted; and * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was formed.
\n
\nEachEach Committee Member may have up to 14 days after a Degree is awarded to publish a Commentary for the Thesis. After that time, the Chair shall publish the most recent Thesis Draft along with all Commentary so published. This combined publication shall become the Final Thesis. Upon publication of this Final Thesis the Committee members cease to be Committee members for that Thesis.
\n
\nThe The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Final Thesis. Thesis that has resulted in a degree, along with all such Commentaries.
\n'),(37612,1370,405688,405767,'A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a Thesis along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a particular degree. A Thesis (plural: Theses) is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general.
\n
\n other tham than emself to be the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the Chair\'s consent.
\n
\n the the Clerk of the Courts shall so appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third Committee member.
\n
\nThe Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Chair of the Thesis Committee may award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:
\n
\n* the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the Rules for the award of that Degree; * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the Thesis is worthy of the Degree to be granted. Attention should be paid to the originality and strength of the work, as well as the extent of the work with regard to the expectations of the particular degree. The committee may award a lesser degree if appropriate; and * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was formed.
\n
\nEach Committee Member may publish a Commentary for the Thesis. The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis that has resulted in a degree, along with all such Commentaries.
\n'),(37613,1370,405767,496184,'A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a Thesis along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a particular degree. A Thesis (plural: Theses) is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general.
\n
\nThe Candidate shall choose a Player other than emself to be the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the Chair\'s consent.
\n
\nIf the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the Clerk of the Courts shall so appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third Committee member.
\n
\nThe Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Chair of the Thesis Committee may award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:
\n
\n* the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the Rules for the award of that Degree; * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the Thesis is worthy of the Degree to be granted. Attention should be paid to the originality and strength of the work, as well as the extent of the work with regard to the expectations of the particular degree. The committee may award a lesser degree if appropriate; and * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was formed.
\n
\nEach Committee Member may publish a Commentary for the Thesis. The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis that has resulted in a degree, along with all such Commentaries.
\n'),(37614,1375,496186,496187,'If the Speaker is On Hold, a new Speaker shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession. The Arbiter of Succession shall be the Registrar; unless the Office of Registrar is vacant, or the Speaker is also the Registrar, in which case the Arbiter of Succession is the first Voter to post a message to the Public Forum stating that e is willing to act as Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\n Players. If a A Speaker is replaced in this manner, who goes on Hold while e has eir score set to minus 2N Points upon becoming a Voter, where N is the number of points required for that player to win at the moment e becomes still Speaker commits a Voter. Class B Crime.
\n'),(37615,1375,496187,496188,' the Office of Registrar is vacant, or the Speaker is also the Registrar, in which case the Arbiter of Succession is the first Voter to post a message to the Public Forum stating that e is willing to act as Arbiter of Succession.
\n
\nThe new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker who goes on Hold while e is still Speaker commits a Class B Crime.
\n'),(37616,1375,496188,496189,' Hold, a new Speaker shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession. The Arbiter of Succession shall be the Registrar; unless then the Speaker is also Player who holds the Registrar, in which case the Arbiter Office of Succession is the first Voter to post a message to Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the Public Forum stating that e is willing old Speaker ceases to act as Arbiter of Succession. be Speaker.
\n
\nThe new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. AA Speaker who goes on Hold while e is still Speaker commits a Class B Crime.
\n'),(37617,1375,496189,496190,'If the Speaker is On Hold, then the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker.
\n
\n commits the Crime of Speaker Inactivity, a Class B Crime.
\n'),(37618,1375,496190,496191,'If theA Speaker is On Hold, then the Player who holds goes On Hold while e is still Speaker commits the Office Crime of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker. Inactivity, a Class B Crime.
\n
\nA Speaker who goes on Hold while e is still Speaker commitsIf the Crime of Speaker Inactivity, is On Hold, a Class B Crime. Speaker Transition occurs.
\n'),(37619,1375,496191,496192,' the Class 10 Crime of Speaker Inactivity, a Class B Crime. Inactivity.
\n
\nIf the Speaker is On Hold, a Speaker Transition occurs.
\n'),(37620,1375,496192,404654,'A Speaker who goes On Hold while e is still Speaker commits the Class 10 Crime of Speaker Inactivity.
\n
\nIf the Speaker is On Hold, a Speaker Transition occurs.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37621,1375,404654,404910,' who goes On Hold ceases to be active while e is still Speaker commits the Class class 10 Crime crime of Speaker Inactivity.
\n
\nIfWhenever the Speaker is On Hold, not active, a Speaker Transition occurs.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37622,1375,404910,496194,'A Speaker who ceases to be active while e is still Speaker commits the class 10 crime of Speaker Inactivity.
\n
\nWhenever the Speaker is not active, a Speaker Transition occurs.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37623,1377,496195,496197,' there be an Officer called exist the Herald, who is responsible for keeping track Office of the Kudos of all Players, as well as any ex-Players who have been Players within the past three months. "Herald".
\n
\n shall post to maintain a record of the Public Forum Honour of every Player and of every non-Player who has been a Player during the past three months.
\n
\nThe Herald shall, once per each Week, post a current Kudo report. This report shall list Report to the Kudos held by each holding Entity. For any Entity whose Kudos have changed since Public Forum; this Report shall report on the previous report, Honour of every entity for which the Herald must include is required to maintain records, and all changes to the reasons for above since the Kudo change, including, if applicable, last such Report. The report of changes shall include the reasons reason for each change; this shall include (but not be limited to) any justification provided by a Player requesting as part of a Player-caused Kudo transfer, as provided by other Rules. transfer.
\n'),(37624,1377,496197,496198,'Let there exist theThere is an Office of "Herald". Herald.
\n
\nThe Herald shall maintain a record of Herald\'s Report includes the Honour of every Player and of every non-Player who Entity that has been a Player during at any time within the past last three months.
\n
\nThe Herald shall, once each Week, post a Report to the Public Forum; this Report shall report on the Honour of every entity for which the Herald is required to maintain records, months, and all changes to the above changes thereof since the last such Report. The report posting of changes shall include the Herald\'s Report. For each such change the Report includes the reason for each change; in the case of a Player-initiated change this shall include (but not be limited to) includes any justification provided by a Player as part of a Player-caused Kudo transfer. the Player.
\n'),(37625,1377,496198,496199,'There is an Office of Herald.
\n
\n the following:
\n
\n- The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any time within the last three months, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report. For each such change the Report includes the
\n
\n- The reason for each such change; in the case of a Player-initiated change this includes any justification provided by the Player. Player.
\n
\n- The number of Indulgences held in each Treasury, the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report, and the reason for each such change.
\n
\n- For every former Player who left the game after the creation of this Rule, their Indulgences at the time they last left the game, just before the emptying and destruction of eir Treasury (if any).
\n
\nThe Herald shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(37626,1377,496199,496200,'There is an Office of Herald.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report includes the following:
\n
\n- The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any time within the last three months, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.
\n
\n- The reason for each such change; in the case of a Player-initiated change this includes any justification provided by the Player.
\n
\n The number of Indulgences held in each Treasury, the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report, and the reason Currency Records for each such change. Indulgences.
\n
\n- For every former Player who left the game after the creation A list of this Rule, their Indulgences at the time they last left the game, just before the emptying all Fugitives from Justice, and destruction the number of eir Treasury (if any). Fugitive Blots attributed to each such Fugitive.
\n
\nThe Herald shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(37627,1377,496200,496201,'There is an Office of Herald.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report includes the following:
\n
\n- The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any time within the last three months, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.
\n
\n- The reason for each such change; in the case of a Player-initiated change this includes any justification provided by the Player.
\n
\n- The Currency Records for Indulgences.
\n
\n- A list of all Fugitives from Justice, and the number of Fugitive Blots attributed to each such Fugitive.
\n
\n a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(37628,1377,496201,496202,'There is an Office of Herald.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report includes the following:
\n
\n- The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any time within the last three months, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.
\n
\n- The reason for each such change; in the case of a Player-initiated change this includes any justification provided by the Player.
\n
\n- The Currency Records for Indulgences.
\n
\n- A list of all Fugitives from Justice, and the number of Fugitive Blots attributed to each such Fugitive.
\n
\n a salary equal to 2 times Salary as set in the Basic Officer Salary. last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n'),(37629,1377,496202,496203,'There is an exists the Office of Herald. Herald, whose responsibility it is to keep track of Honour, and to be the Recordkeepor of Indulgences.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report includes the following:
\n
\n-i) The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any time within the last three months, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.
\n
\n-ii) The reason for each such change; in change. In the case of a Player-initiated change change, this includes any justification provided by the Player.
\n
\n-iii) The Currency Records for Indulgences.
\n
\n- A list of all Fugitives from Justice, and theiv) The number of Fugitive Blots attributed to staining each such Fugitive.
\n
\nThe Herald shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget. Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n'),(37630,1377,496203,496204,'There exists the Office of Herald, whose responsibility it is to keep track of Honour, and to be the Recordkeepor of Indulgences.
\n
\n Report includes shall include the following:
\n
\ni) The(i) The Honour of every Entity each entity that has been a Player at any time within the last three months, and the changes thereof thereto since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.
\n
\nii) The(ii) The reason for each such change. In the case of a Player-initiated change, this includes any justification provided by the Player.
\n
\niii) The Currency Records for Indulgences.(iii) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\niv) The number(iv) A list of Blots staining each Player Patent Title with Historical Significance that has been awarded and Fugitive from Justice. not subsequently revoked, and to whom it has been awarded.
\n
\n(v) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which persons possess them.
\n'),(37631,1377,496204,496205,' of Honour, Blots and to be the Recordkeepor of Indulgences.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report shall include the following:
\n
\n The Honour number of Blots staining the records of each entity that has been a Player within the last three months, and the changes thereto since the last posting of the Report. Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n(ii) The reason for each such change. In the case A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that at least one person Bears and that is not a Player-initiated change, this includes any justification provided by the Player. Degree, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(iii) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n(iv) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that has been awarded and not subsequently revoked, and to whom it has been awarded.
\n
\n(v) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which persons possess Bear them.
\n'),(37632,1377,496205,404682,''),(37633,1377,404682,404853,'There exists the Office of Herald, whose responsibility itThe Herald is to keep track an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Blots Indulgences and to be the Recordkeepor is responsible for keeping track of Indulgences. Blots.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report shall include the following:
\n
\n(i) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n(ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which persons Bear them.
\n'),(37634,1377,404853,404880,'The Herald is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Indulgences and is responsible for keeping track of Blots.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report shall include the following:
\n
\n The number of Blots staining the records Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n(ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which persons Bear them.
\n'),(37635,1377,404880,405179,' is recordkeepor of Indulgences and is responsible for keeping track of Blots.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report shall include the following:
\n
\n(i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n(ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which persons Bear them.
\n'),(37636,1377,405179,405297,'The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of Blots.
\n
\n Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:
\n
\n(i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n(ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which persons Bear them.
\n'),(37637,1377,405297,405675,'The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of Blots.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:
\n
\n(i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n(ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which persons Bear them.
\n
\n(iv) Each player\'s Education.
\n'),(37638,1377,405675,405732,' of Blots. the History of Agora and its players.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:
\n
\n(i) The Stain A list of each Player Patent Title and Fugitive from Justice. Degree that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(ii) A a list of each Patent Title all registered players, with Historical Significance that at least one person Bears their nicknames, if any, and that is not a Degree, with a list of which persons Bear it. listed email addresses;
\n
\n(iii) A list of Degrees the most recent date on which have been granted, and which persons Bear them. each registered player registered;
\n
\n(iv) Each player\'s Education. the current Officers and their dates of service.
\n'),(37639,1377,405732,405834,'The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of the History of Agora and its players.
\n
\n Herald\'s Weekly Report report shall include the following:
\n
\n(i)a) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.
\n
\n(ii) a b) A list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses;
\n
\n(iii) the most recent date on which each registered player registered;
\n
\n(iv) the current Officers and their dates of service. one or more Threats, including Bears.
\n'),(37640,1377,405834,405977,' of the History marks of Agora honour and its players.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s report shall include the following:
\n
\na) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. b) A list of one or more Threats, including Bears. shame relating to Agora.
\n'),(37641,1377,405977,496196,'The Herald isLet there be an office; its holder Officer called the Herald, who is responsible for keeping track of marks the Kudos of honour and shame relating all Players, as well as any ex-Players who have been Players within the past three months.
\n
\nThe Herald shall post to the Public Forum once per Week, a current Kudo report. This report shall list the Kudos held by each holding Entity. For any Entity whose Kudos have changed since the previous report, the Herald must include the reasons for the Kudo change, including, if applicable, the reasons provided by a Player requesting a Kudo transfer, as provided by other Rules.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to Agora. all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37642,1377,496196,496214,'Let there be an Officer called the Herald, who is responsible for keeping track of the Kudos of all Players, as well as any ex-Players who have been Players within the past three months.
\n
\nThe Herald shall post to the Public Forum once per Week, a current Kudo report. This report shall list the Kudos held by each holding Entity. For any Entity whose Kudos have changed since the previous report, the Herald must include the reasons for the Kudo change, including, if applicable, the reasons provided by a Player requesting a Kudo transfer, as provided by other Rules.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37643,1378,496215,496216,'In each Nomic Week, each Player not On Hold (the Transferring Player) is permitted to transfer a maximum of two Kudos from Players of eir choice to other Players of eir choice, subject to these restrictions: 1) The Transferring Player is not permitted to transfer more than oneA single Kudo shall be transferred from any Player, and is not permitted to transfer more than one Kudo to any Player, within the Week. 2) The Transferring Player is not permitted to transfer Kudos (the "Victim") to emself. A Kudo transfer occurs a second Player (the "Beneficiary") when a Player (the "Transferer") sends a message to the Herald indicating that e is transferring a legitimate Kudo transfer request, including a reason for from the Victim to the Beneficiary, and all the transfer. following conditions hold:
\n
\nOther Rules are permitteda) the Transferer has not, during the current Nomic Week, previously caused two or more Kudo transfers; b) the Transferer is not the same Player as the Beneficiary; c) The Transferer has not, during the current Nomic Week, previously transferred a Kudo away from the Victim or to provide the Beneficiary; d) the Victim has at least one Kudo; and e) the message contains a justification for the transfer.
\n
\nThis Rule does not in any way prohibit other types of Kudo changes. Rules from causing changes to a Player\'s Honour.
\n'),(37644,1378,496216,496217,'A single Kudo Notice of Honor is a public message containing exactly one Victim (a Player whose Honor shall be transferred from decreased), exactly one Beneficiary (a Player (the "Victim") to a second Player (the "Beneficiary") when a Player (the "Transferer") sends a message to the Herald indicating that e is transferring a Kudo from the Victim to the Beneficiary, whose Honor shall be increased) and all the following conditions hold: reason why each was selected.
\n
\na) the Transferer has not, during the current Nomic Week, previously caused two or more Kudo transfers; b) the Transferer is not the sameAny Player as the Beneficiary; c) The Transferer has not, during the current Nomic Week, previously transferred may execute a Kudo away from the Victim or to the Beneficiary; d) the Victim has at least one Kudo; and e) the message contains a justification for the transfer. Notice of Honor provided that following conditions hold:
\n
\nThis Rule doesa) E has not in any way prohibit other Rules from causing changes to already executed two or more Notices of Honor during the current Nomic Week. b) E is not also the Beneficiary. c) E has not already executed a Player\'s Honour. Notice of Honor during the current Nomic Week naming the same Victim. d) The Victim has an Honor of at least one Kudo.
\n
\nThe effect of a Notice of Honor is to reduce the Honor of the Victim by one Kudo and to increase the Honor of the Beneficiary by one Kudo.
\n'),(37645,1397,496218,496219,'A Group shall cease to exist when any of the following conditions become true:
\n
\n(a) The Group has no members; (b) The continued existence of the Group would result in the Office of Vizier of that Group being vacant; or (c) The Group elects to dissolve in accordance with its Ordinances.
\n
\nUponAt the dissolution of moment a Group, all remaining Members of the Group simultaneously cease to be Members of that Group. Next, any Points remaining in the Group\'s Treasury are destroyed, and any Currencies remaining in the Group\'s Treasury are transferred to the issuing Entity for that Currency (the Bank for Marks, dissolves, the issuing Group for Coins). Finally, all Coins issued by the dissolving Group are destroyed. following events take place:
\n
\nIn(1) The Currencies remaining in the Group\'s Treasury are divided up as evenly as possible and transferred to those Players who were Members of the Group at the moment of its dissolution. (2) All Coins issued by that Group are destroyed. (3) The Group\'s Treasury, and the Group itself, cease to exist. All Players who were members of that Group cease to be Members.
\n
\nIn the case of a Group which elects to dissolve, the Vizier of the dissolving Group shall notify the Registrar of the Group\'s dissolution. in all other cases, the The Registrar shall be is responsible for detecting when a Group dissolves due to detect and a lack of Members or a lack of a Vizier.
\n
\nWhenever a Group dissolves for any reason, the Registrar shall report that event as soon as possible to the Group\'s dissolution. Public Forum. The Banker is responsible for detecting and reporting all transfers required by this Rule.
\n'),(37646,1397,496219,496220,'A Group shall ceaseAn Organization ceases to exist when any of the following conditions become true:
\n
\n(a) The Group hasi) Its Compact ceases to have Jurisdiction over any Players and no members; (b) provision exists for the Jurisdiction to expand. ii) The continued existence of the Group Organization would result in the Office absence of Vizier a Administrator (and/or the absence of that Group being vacant; or (c) an Executor in the case of a Orginization with Treasuries) with no provision for any Player to fulfill the role(s). iii) The Group elects Organization is required to dissolve in accordance with its Ordinances. Compact or the Rules.
\n
\n moment a Group an Organization dissolves, the following events take place: occurs, in order.
\n
\n(1) Thei) Any Currencies remaining in the Group\'s Treasury Organization\'s Treasuries (if such exist) are divided up as evenly distributed as possible and transferred to those provided for by other Rules. ii) All Players who were Members of the Group at cease to be within the moment Jurisdiction of its dissolution. (2) All Coins issued by that Group are destroyed. (3) the Organization\'s Compact. iii) The Group\'s Treasury, Organization\'s Treasuries, Compact, and the Group Organization itself, cease to exist. All Players who were members of that Group cease to be Members. exist.
\n
\nIn the case ofWhenever a Group which elects to dissolve, the Vizier of Public Organization dissolves, the dissolving Group Notary shall notify the Registrar of report that event to the Group\'s dissolution. The Registrar Public Forum As Soon As Possible after e is responsible for detecting when a Group dissolves due to a lack of Members or a lack of a Vizier. notified as required by other Rules.
\n
\nWhenever a Group dissolves for any reason, the Registrar shall report that event as soon as possible to the Public Forum. The Banker is responsible for detecting and reporting all transfers required by this Rule.Other Rules may define additional causes of dissolution.
\n'),(37647,1397,496220,496221,'An Organization ceases to exist when any of the following conditions become true:
\n
\n a Orginization Organization with Treasuries) with no provision for any Player to fulfill the role(s). iii) The Organization is required to dissolve in accordance with its Compact or the Rules.
\n
\nAt the moment an Organization dissolves, the following occurs, in order.
\n
\ni) Any Currencies remaining in the Organization\'s Treasuries (if such exist) are distributed as provided for by other Rules. ii) All Players cease to be within the Jurisdiction of the Organization\'s Compact. iii) The Organization\'s Treasuries, Compact, and the Organization itself, cease to exist.
\n
\nWhenever a Public Organization dissolves, the Notary shall report that event to the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after e is notified as required by other Rules.
\n
\nOther Rules may define additional causes of dissolution.
\n'),(37648,1397,496221,496222,' Organization ceases is required to exist when any of the following conditions become true: be dissolved when:
\n
\ni) Its Compact ceases to havea) its Compact\'s Jurisdiction over any Players becomes empty, and there is no provision exists way for the Jurisdiction it to expand. ii) The cease to be empty; b) the continued existence of the Organization would result in require that the absence of a Administrator (and/or Organization have no legal Adminstrator; or c) the absence continued existence of an Executor in the case of a Organization with Treasuries) with no provision for any Player to fulfill would require that the role(s). iii) The Organization is required to dissolve in accordance with its Compact or have no legal Executor, but only if the Rules. Organization possesses a Treasury.
\n
\nAt the moment an Organization dissolves, the following occurs, in order.
\n
\ni) Any Currencies remainingThis Rule does not in the Organization\'s Treasuries (if such exist) are distributed as provided for by any way prevent other Rules. ii) All Players cease to be within the Jurisdiction of the Organization\'s Compact. iii) The Organization\'s Treasuries, Compact, and the Organization itself, cease to exist.
\n
\nWhenever a Public Rules from requiring an Organization dissolves, the Notary shall report that event to the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after e is notified as required by dissolve under other Rules.
\n
\nOther Rules may define additional causes of dissolution. circumstances.
\n'),(37649,1397,496222,496223,' Organization is shall only be dissolved when the Rules or the Organization\'s SLC require it. An Organization shall be required to be dissolved when: whenever any of the following conditions are true:
\n
\na) its Compact\'si) The Jurisdiction of its SLC becomes empty, and there is no way provision for it this to cease to be empty; b) the change. ii) The continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization have no legal Adminstrator; or c) Administrator. iii) The continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization have no legal Executor. iv) The continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization have no legal Executor, but only if Maintainer for its SLC. v) The SLC of the Organization requires the Organization possesses to dissolve. This is a Treasury. Voluntary Dissolution, all other dissolutions are Administrative Dissolutions.
\n
\nThis Rule does not inThe Notary is required to detect when an Administrative Dissolution takes place.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Organization dissolves, for any way prevent other reason, the Notary shall report that dissolution to the Public Forum.
\n
\nAll Organizations cease to exist upon dissolution. Other Rules from requiring can require an Organization to dissolve under other circumstances.
\n'),(37650,1397,496223,496224,' shall only be dissolved only when the Rules or the Organization\'s SLC require requires it. An Organization shall be required to be dissolved whenever any of the following conditions are is true:
\n
\ni) The(i) the Jurisdiction of its SLC becomes empty, and there is no provision for this to change. ii) The continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization have no legal Administrator. iii) The continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization have no legal Executor. iv) The continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization have no legal Maintainer for its SLC. v) The SLC of the Organization requires the Organization to dissolve. This is a Voluntary Dissolution, all other dissolutions are Administrative Dissolutions. change;
\n
\nThe Notary is required to detect when an Administrative Dissolution takes place.(ii) the continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization not have all of a legal Administrator, a legal Executor, and a legal Maintainer for its SLC; or
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an(iii) the SLC of the Organization dissolves, for any reason, requires the Notary shall report that dissolution Organization to the Public Forum. dissolve.
\n
\nAll Organizations ceaseRequirement to dissolve by condition (iii) is Voluntary. Any other requirement to dissolve is Administrative.
\n
\nThe Notary shall detect when an Administrative Dissolution takes place.
\n
\nEach Organization ceases to exist upon its dissolution. Other Other Rules can may require an Organization to dissolve under other circumstances.
\n'),(37651,1397,496224,404671,''),(37652,1397,404671,404730,'AnA Organization shall be dissolved cease to exist only when the Rules as specified by its Charter or by the Organization\'s SLC requires it. An Organization shall be required to be dissolved whenever any of the following conditions is true: Rules.
\n
\n(i) the Jurisdiction of its SLC becomes empty, and there is no provision for this to change;
\n
\n(ii) the continued existence of the Organization would require that the Organization not have all of a legal Administrator, a legal Executor, and a legal Maintainer for its SLC; or
\n
\n(iii) the SLC of the Organization requires theAn Organization to dissolve.
\n
\nRequirement to dissolve by condition (iii) is Voluntary. Any other requirement to dissolve is Administrative.
\n
\nThe Notary shall detect when an Administrative Dissolution takes place.
\n
\nEach Organization ceases cease to exist upon its dissolution. Other Rules may require an Organization if it would otherwise lack a property that Organizations are required to dissolve under other circumstances. have.
\n'),(37653,1397,404730,496226,'A Organization shall cease to exist only as specified by its Charter or by the Rules.
\n
\nAn Organization shall cease to exist if it would otherwise lack a property that Organizations are required to have.
\n'),(37654,1416,496227,496228,' be deleted by means of a Directive to delete that Category. Such a Directive shall clearly state the Category to be deleted. The Proposal containing such a Directive must have an Adoption Index of at least 2. If the Proposal passes, the Rule Category shall be removed from by the Rule Set. Non-empty Rule Categories may not be deleted. Rulekeepor as e sees fit.
\n'),(37655,1430,496230,496231,' Proposal and the Entity that proposed it, or Rule Rule-- or other entity-- which contained mandated the Change), and the date upon which the change took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.
\n
\nSuch an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself, is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text of the Rule.
\n
\nWhen a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.
\n'),(37656,1430,496231,496232,' shall attach record a historical annotation to the Rule an annotation giving the type of change, the source of the Change (that is, the Number of the Proposal and the Entity that proposed it, or Rule-- or other entity-- which mandated the Change), and the date upon which the change took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.
\n
\nSuch an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself, is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text of the Rule.
\n
\nWhen a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.
\n'),(37657,1430,496232,496233,' is, the Number of a reference to the Proposal and the Entity that proposed it, or Rule-- Rule or other entity-- entity which mandated the Change), Change) , and the date upon which the change took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.
\n
\nSuch an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself, is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text of the Rule.
\n
\nWhen a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.
\n'),(37658,1430,496233,496234,' and the Entity that proposed it, its Proposer, or Rule or other entity which mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the change took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.
\n
\nSuch an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself, is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text of the Rule.
\n
\nWhen a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.
\n'),(37659,1430,496234,404592,''),(37660,1430,404592,405416,' its Proposer, Proposer (along with any Players explicitly named as co-authors in the Proposal), or Rule or other entity which mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the change took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.
\n
\nSuch an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself, is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text of the Rule.
\n
\nWhen a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.
\n'),(37661,1430,405416,405623,' a Rule rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor Rulekeeper shall record a historical annotation to the Rule giving the type of change, the source of the Change (that is, a reference to the Proposal and its Proposer (along with any Players explicitly named as co-authors in the Proposal), or Rule or other entity which mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the change took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change. rule indicating:
\n
\nSuch an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself, is not part of(a) the text type of change; (b) if the Rule, and is not rule was changed due to a Rule Change in proposal, a reference to that proposal, its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in such a way that they are readily distinguished from proposal; (c) if the text of rule was changed by some other mechanism, the mechanism which specified the change; and (d) the date on which the Rule. change took effect.
\n
\nWhen aOther rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.
\n
\nAnnotations to a rule are not part of the rule, and annotating a rule is not a rule change. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text of the rule.
\n
\nWhen a rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.
\n'),(37662,1430,405623,496237,'Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeeper shall record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:
\n
\n(a) the type of change; (b) if the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal; (c) if the rule was changed by some other mechanism, the mechanism which specified the change; and (d) the date on which the change took effect.
\n
\nOther rules may require additional information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.
\n
\nAnnotations to a rule are not part of the rule, and annotating a rule is not a rule change. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text of the rule.
\n
\nWhen a rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.
\n'),(37663,1431,496238,496239,'If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public Forum.
\n
\n claim, the Claimant then any Player may, within one week of the posted denial (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be in error.
\n
\nIf and only if the Respondant admits the claim, then any Player may, within one week of the posted admission (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make a Call for Judgement alleging that the document is not in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be in error.
\n
\nIf the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error without a Call for Judgement having been made.
\n
\nA claim is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, an "offical report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion of any information which causes the official report or document to allege that the Game State is in any way different than it actually is.
\n
\nNo Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made.
\n'),(37664,1431,496239,496240,'If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public Forum.
\n
\nIf and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, then any Player may, within one week of the posted denial (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be in error.
\n
\nIf and only if the Respondant admits the claim, then any Player may, within one week of the posted admission (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make a Call for Judgement alleging that the document is not in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be in error.
\n
\nIf the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error without a Call for Judgement having been made.
\n
\nA claim is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.
\n
\n an "offical "official report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion of any information which causes the official report or document to allege that the Game State is in any way different than it actually is.
\n
\nNo Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made.
\n'),(37665,1431,496240,496241,' shall at eir discretion post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public Forum.
\n
\nIf and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, then any Player may, within one week of the posted denial (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be in error.
\n
\nIf and only if the Respondant admits the claim, then any Player may, within one week of the posted admission (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make a Call for Judgement alleging that the document is not in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be in error.
\n
\nIf the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error without a Call for Judgement having been made.
\n
\nA claim is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, an "official report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion of any information which causes the official report or document to allege that the Game State is in any way different than it actually is.
\n
\nNo Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made.
\n'),(37666,1431,496241,496242,'If a Player, hereafter calledAny Player (hereafter the Claimant, Claimant) who believes that any official report or document to contain an error, e shall at eir discretion post message posted to the Public Forum makes a statement that e believes claim about the report to be Game State which is in error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the Respondant, error is permitted to, at eir discretion, post to correct the Public Forum alleging that that message contains an error. The Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as possible after the posting Such an allegation is a Claim of the claim, either admit the claim Error, and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to legal must also specify the Public Forum. nature of the alleged error.
\n
\nIf and only if the Respondant does not admitAs soon as possible after a legal Claim of Error is posted, the claim, then any Player may, within one week who posted the message which contains the alleged error (hereafter, the Respondant) shall investigate the allegation of error and report to the posted denial (or Public Forum the expiration results of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make a Call for Judgement alleging this investigation. If the document to be in error in investigation determines that the way original claim was in which error, the Claim of Error alleged Respondant shall retract that claim, replacing it with the corrected version. A Player who is not on Hold who fails to be in error. complete such an investigation within seven days when required by this Rule commits a Class C Crime.
\n
\nIf and only if the Respondant admits the claim, then any Player may, within one weekThe determinations of the posted admission (or the expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response), make such an investigation may be challenged by a Call for Judgement alleging that the document original (or revised) claim is not in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be in error.
\n
\nIf the Respondant does not admit theA Player who is determined by CFJ to have posted an erroneous claim and a subsequent Call for Judgement finds that to the claim is true, the Respondant shall lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible Public Forum commits an Infraction, the penalty for reporting this score change when it occurs. There which is no 1 Blot, to be reported by the Judge of the CFJ. This penalty under this Rule only applies if a legal Claim of Error was made upon the Respondant admits the claim erroneous claim, and corrects that Claim of Error was either not investigated by the error Respondant, or was investigated and found to be without a Call for Judgement having been made. merit, and finally if the erroneous claim was not retracted prior to the making of the CFJ.
\n
\nA claim Claim of Error is illegal and may not be made if: a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same error, unless this prior claim was not admitted legal and the time limit to make a CFJ has expired; b) the document containing the error was published more than 21 days prior to the claim; or c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player responsible for the document alleged to be in error. d) the report in error has been superceded by another report. no effect if:
\n
\nFor the purposea) another Claim of this Rule, an "official report or document" is any report or document which an Officer (or Error has previously been made alleging the Speaker) is required to maintain by same error; b) the Rules in message containing the course alleged error was posted more than 21 days prior to the making of eir duties as that Officer (or as Speaker), and an "error" is the omission or inclusion Claim of any information which causes Error; c) the official report claim alleged to be in error has already been withdrawn or retracted; or document d) the Player posting the message alleged to allege that contain the Game State error is in any way different than it actually is.
\n
\nNo Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document contains errors except the same as prescribed in this Rule.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from being made. Player making the Claim of Error.
\n'),(37667,1431,496242,496243,'Any Player (hereafter the Claimant) who believes that anyA Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum makes a claim about to the Game State which is in error is permitted to, at eir discretion, effect that a specific post to the Public Forum alleging that that message contains an error. Such an allegation is a Claim of Error, misrepresents the actual Game State, and to be legal must also specify documenting the nature of the alleged error.
\n
\nAs soon as possible afterA Response to a legal Claim of Error is posted, the Player who posted the message which contains the alleged error (hereafter, the Respondant) shall investigate the allegation of error and report consists in posting to the Public Forum either a denial of the Claim, or an admission of the results Claim, which shall then include a corrected version of this investigation. If the investigation determines that portion of the original claim relevant message which was in error, the Respondant shall retract that claim, replacing it with the corrected version. A Player who is not on Hold who fails to complete such an investigation within seven days when required by this Rule commits a Class C Crime. error.
\n
\nThe determinations of such an investigation mayA Response must be challenged provided by a Call for Judgement alleging that the original (or revised) claim the Player who is in error. required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
\n
\n who is determined by CFJ to have posted an erroneous claim fails to post a Response whithin the Public Forum alloted time commits an Infraction, the Infraction carrying a penalty for which is of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Judge of the CFJ. This penalty only applies if a legal Claim of Error was made upon the erroneous claim, and that Claim of Error was either not investigated by the Respondant, or was investigated and found to be without merit, and finally if the erroneous claim was not retracted prior to the making of the CFJ.
\n
\nA Claim of Error is not legal and has no effect if:
\n
\na) another Claim of Error has previously been made alleging the same error; b) the message containing the alleged error was posted more than 21 days prior to the making of the Claim of Error; c) the claim alleged to be in error has already been withdrawn or retracted; or d) the Player posting the message alleged to contain the error is the same as who posted the Claim. A Player making the Claim who incorrectly issues a denial of Error. a Claim commits a Class 1 Crime.
\n'),(37668,1431,496243,496244,'A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.
\n
\nA Response to a Claim of Error consists in posting to the Public Forum either a denial of the Claim, or an admission of the Claim, which shall then include a corrected version of the portion of the relevant message which was in error.
\n
\nA Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
\n
\n commits an the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime.
\n'),(37669,1431,496244,496245,'A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.
\n
\n in error. error. A Response denying a Claim may be superseded by a second Response admitting that Claim.
\n
\nA Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
\n
\n Response whithin within the alloted time commits the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime. Crime, unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.
\n'),(37670,1431,496245,496246,'A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.
\n
\n the Claim, Claim or an admission of the Claim, which shall Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then include the Player making the admission is required to post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the relevant message which was in error. A Response denying error, before one week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim may be superseded by but does not publish a second Response admitting correction is deemed not to have Responded to that Claim.
\n
\nA Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
\n
\nA Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time commits the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.
\n'),(37671,1431,496246,496247,'A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.
\n
\nA Response to a Claim of Error consists in posting to the Public Forum either a denial of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message which was in error, before one week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that Claim.
\n
\nA Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
\n
\n the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.
\n'),(37672,1431,496247,496248,' a public message posted to the Public Forum to the effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.
\n
\n Error consists in posting to the Public Forum publicly either a denial of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message which was in error, before one week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that Claim.
\n
\nA Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
\n
\nA Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.
\n'),(37673,1431,496248,496249,'A Claim of Error is a public message to the effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.
\n
\nA Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message which was in error, before one week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that Claim.
\n
\n the error error * the Claim is in dispute
\n
\n the alloted allotted time commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.
\n'),(37674,1431,496249,404432,' specific post to the Public Forum public communication misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.
\n
\nA Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message which was in error, before one week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that Claim.
\n
\nA Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error * the Claim is in dispute
\n
\nA Player who fails to post a Response within the allotted time commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37675,1431,404432,405030,' message to the effect claiming that a specific public communication misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error. error. The person who sent the original communication is hereafter known as the Journalist, and the portion of the communication claimed to be in error is hereafter known as the Yellow Document.
\n
\n Error posting publicly either is a denial of public message from the Claim Journalist that either admits or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then the Player making denies the claim. An admission is required to post not valid until the Journalist posts a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message which was in error, before one week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that Claim. Yellow Document.
\n
\nA Response must be provided byIf the Player who is Journalist was required by the Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one week of in the Claim being made, Yellow Document, then e must publish a Response as soon as possible, unless any one of the following holds: * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before * another message by the same Player has corrected the error * the Claim is in dispute holds:
\n
\nA Player who fails to posta) E has already published a Response within correction. b) A previous Claim was made concerning the allotted time commits same error. c) The Claim was posted more than three weeks after the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, Yellow Document. d) The Claim is in dispute. If the Claim ceases to be in dispute, then the Journalist must publish a Response as soon as possible after it ceases to be reported in dispute.
\n
\nIf the Journalist was not required by the Player who posted Rules to publish the Claim. A information in the Yellow Document, then e is encouraged (but not required) to publish a Response in a timely fashion.
\n
\nA Player who incorrectly issues a denial of denies a Claim commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless Crime of Implausible Deniability. However, if e then admits the Claim within 72 hours three days after the incorrect denial. denial, then e shall not be convicted of this Crime.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37676,1431,405030,496252,'A Claim of Error is a public message claiming that a specific public communication misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error. The person who sent the original communication is hereafter known as the Journalist, and the portion of the communication claimed to be in error is hereafter known as the Yellow Document.
\n
\nA Response to a Claim of Error is a public message from the Journalist that either admits or denies the claim. An admission is not valid until the Journalist posts a corrected version of the Yellow Document.
\n
\nIf the Journalist was required by the Rules to publish the information in the Yellow Document, then e must publish a Response as soon as possible, unless one of the following holds:
\n
\na) E has already published a correction. b) A previous Claim was made concerning the same error. c) The Claim was posted more than three weeks after the Yellow Document. d) The Claim is in dispute. If the Claim ceases to be in dispute, then the Journalist must publish a Response as soon as possible after it ceases to be in dispute.
\n
\nIf the Journalist was not required by the Rules to publish the information in the Yellow Document, then e is encouraged (but not required) to publish a Response in a timely fashion.
\n
\nA Player who incorrectly denies a Claim commits the Class 1 Crime of Implausible Deniability. However, if e admits the Claim within three days after the incorrect denial, then e shall not be convicted of this Crime.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37677,1432,496253,496254,' was previously. previously. Further, no person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently.
\n'),(37678,1433,496255,496256,'A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end. When a Game ends due to a Win:
\n
\n- If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Speaker-Elect. If there was already a Speaker-Elect, the old Speaker-Elect ceases to be Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n- If there is more than one Winner, the Winner with the highest Point total becomes the Speaker-Elect. If more than one Winner is tied for the highest score, the Speaker randomly selects one of them to be Speaker-Elect. If there was already a Speaker-Elect, the old Speaker-Elect ceases to be Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n- All Points held in For every Treasury other than the Treasuries Bank, if that Treasury possesses Points, a commensurate number of Players Marks computed using the secondary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from the Bank to that Treasury, and all Points in that Treasury are transferred to the Bank. Bank. These transfers are to be detected and reported by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\n- A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the status they had at the end of the old Game.
\n'),(37679,1433,496256,496257,''),(37680,1433,496257,496258,'A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end. When a Game ends due to a Win:
\n
\n- If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Speaker-Elect. If there was already a Speaker-Elect, the old Speaker-Elect ceases to be Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n- If there is more than one Winner, the Winner with the highest Point total becomes the Speaker-Elect. If more than one Winner is tied for the highest score, the Speaker randomly selects one of them to be Speaker-Elect. If there was already a Speaker-Elect, the old Speaker-Elect ceases to be Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n- For every Treasury other than the Bank, if that Treasury possesses Points, a commensurate number of Marks computed using the secondary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from the Bank to that Treasury, and all Points in that Treasury are transferred to the Bank. These transfers are to be detected and reported by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\n- A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the status they had at the end of the old Game.
\n'),(37681,1433,496258,496259,'A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end. When a Game ends due to a Win:
\n
\n- For every Treasury other than the Bank, if that Treasury possesses Points, a commensurate number of Marks computed using the secondary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from the Bank to that Treasury, and all Points in that Treasury are transferred to the Bank. These transfers are to be detected and reported by the Scorekeepor.
\n
\n- A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the status they had at the end of the old Game.
\n'),(37682,1434,496260,496261,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\n procedure is specifically NOT to shall under no circumstances be used for Proposal Voting until this Rule is amended to remove this restriction, and on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Proposal Rules are amended accordingly. governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n* Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n begins when at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules. Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than 1 for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Quorum: The Quorum, the smallest allowable fraction of eligible Voting Entities which actually Vote on a particular Referendum, is 50%. If a smaller fraction Voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of the moment the results are announced to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37683,1434,496261,496262,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n* Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\nThis shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already Voted.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than 1 for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Quorum: The Quorum, the smallest allowable fraction of eligible Voting Entities which actually Vote on a particular Referendum, is 50%. If a smaller fraction Voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of the moment the results are announced to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37684,1434,496262,496263,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n* Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\nThis shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already Voted.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than 1 for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails.
\n
\n Quorum: The Quorum, the smallest allowable fraction Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting Entities which actually Vote on a particular Referendum, is 50%. at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction Voted, voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of the moment the results are announced to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37685,1434,496263,496264,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.
\n
\n* Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\nThis shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already Voted.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n than 1 Adotion Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails. fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index for a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting Entities at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of the moment the results are announced to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37686,1434,496264,496265,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n is the Entity responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. This Entity is Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker if not otherwise specified. shall be the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\nThis shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already Voted.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than Adotion Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index for a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting Entities at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of the moment the results are announced to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37687,1434,496265,496266,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold Voters: Only Active Players may Vote on a Referendum. On Hold status Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\nThis shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already Voted.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than Adotion Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index for a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n eligible Voting Entities Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of the moment the results are announced to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37688,1434,496266,496267,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Voters: Only Active Players may Vote on a Referendum. Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\nThis shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already Voted.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n than Adotion Adoption Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index for a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of the moment the results are announced to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37689,1434,496267,404510,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Voters: Only Active Players may Vote on a Referendum. Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n legal public announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public Forum, together with Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while the Voting is underway.
\n
\n from posting, publishing at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already Voted.
\n
\n shall post to the Public Forum, publish, after the Voting Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than Adoption Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index for a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails.
\n
\n are announced to the Public Forum. published.
\n'),(37690,1434,404510,496269,' used. Details Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n the Votes Votes, and announcing the result. Unless otherwise specified, results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker shall be at the Vote Collector. time the Referendum begins.
\n
\n* Voters: Only Active Players may Disappearance of Vote on a Referendum. Activity Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is measured at deregistered before announcing the results of the Referendum, then the time a Player sends eir Vote. Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote Voters: A Voter is an entity permitted to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e on a Referendum. Only Active Players are Voters. Activity is Voting on, and what eir measured at the time a Vote is. is sent.
\n
\n* Vote Values: Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible. Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n Vote Strength: Every Values: A Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity may Vote more than once on any single Referendum. is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed. Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum is begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector. Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Duration Start of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by begins at the Vote Collector outside time of the Voting Period have no effect. first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Duration of Voting: Unless otherwise specified, The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector may not give away any information about the Votes while outside of the Voting is underway. Period have no effect.
\n
\nThis shall in no way prohibit* Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector from publishing at any time may publish a list of those Players Voters who have already Voted. Voted. However, the Vote Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to do so.
\n
\n* Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall publish, after the Voting Period is over, announce the number of Votes of each kind kind, as well as the name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote. that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio Quorum: Quorum is 50% of FOR Votes on a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than Adoption Index for eligible Voters at the Referendum to pass. If it is not, beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n Index: Unless otherwise specified, the The Adoption Index for of a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the eligible Voters at the beginning ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction voted, Adoption Ratio is greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity), and if the Referendum automatically does not fail for some other reason, then it passes; otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a Referendum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, it automatically fails. defined by other Rules.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: Cutoff for Challenges: If the full effects results of a Referendum, as defined in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come into force as of are not challenged within seven days after the moment Vote Collector announces them, then the announced results are published. the true results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in error.
\n'),(37691,1434,496269,404832,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum begins.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n Voters: A For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to do so.
\n
\n* Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum is 50% of the eligible Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity), and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason, then it passes; otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a Referendum is defined by other Rules.
\n
\n* Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced results are the true results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in error.
\n'),(37692,1434,404832,405367,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum begins.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to do so.
\n
\n* Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n is 50% one third of the eligible Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity), and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason, then it passes; otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a Referendum is defined by other Rules.
\n
\n* Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced results are the true results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in error.
\n'),(37693,1434,405367,405375,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum begins.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to do so.
\n
\n* Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity), and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason, then it passes; otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a Referendum is defined by other Rules.
\n
\n* Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced results are the true results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in error.
\n'),(37694,1434,405375,405441,'When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum begins.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.
\n
\n Retraction: A Vote, once During the Voting period a Voter may change or cancel any Vote e has sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be changed. Collector by notifying the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to do so.
\n
\n* Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity), and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason, then it passes; otherwise, it fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a Referendum is defined by other Rules.
\n'),(37695,1434,405441,405591,'WhenDetermining whether to adopt a Referendum Vote referendum is required and an Agoran decision. For this decision, the procedure is not defined elsewhere, available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and the following Standard Referendum Voting Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein eligible voters are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations. the players.
\n
\nThis procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules governing specific types of Proposals.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum begins.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are Voters. Activity is measured atIf the time a Vote is sent.
\n
\n* Voting: A Voter Votes option selected by sending eir Vote to the Vote Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may Vote more than once Agora on any single Referendum.
\n
\n* Retraction: During the Voting period a Voter may change or cancel any Vote e has sent to the Vote Collector by notifying the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to do so.
\n
\n* Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum decision is one third of the eligible Voters at the beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, ADOPTED, then the Referendum fails.
\n
\n* Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.
\n
\n* Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio referendum is greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity), adopted, and if the Referendum does not fail for some unless other reason, then rules prevent it passes; otherwise, from taking effect, it fails.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a Referendum is defined by other Rules. referendum to take effect.
\n'),(37696,1434,405591,496275,'Determining whether to adopt a referendum is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and the eligible voters are the players.
\n
\nIf the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the referendum is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a referendum to take effect.
\n'),(37697,1435,496276,496277,'Let there be an Entity calledIndulgences are a Blot. At all times all Players possess an integral number of Blots equal to or greater than zero. Any Player with zero Blots Currency. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is referred to as Immaculate. Any new Player, or a Player with no recorded Blots, shall be Immaculate. the Herald.
\n
\nBlots may never be transferred between Players.A Blot is an amount of -1 Indulgences. A gain of Blots is the same as a loss of Indulgences, and a loss of Blots is the same as a gain of Indulgences. Any Player with nonnegative Indulgences is referred to as Immaculate.
\n
\nA Player who is notNot being Immaculate can\'t Win the Game. This Rule takes precedence over any other rule defining who is eligible to Win. a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(37698,1435,496277,496278,' Currency. The The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.
\n
\nA Blot is an amount of -1 Indulgences. A gain Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of Blots which is the same as Bank, is called a loss of Indulgences, and Blot. When a loss of Blots Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the same Bank as the payee, and for a gain number of Indulgences. Any Player with nonnegative Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player is referred to as Immaculate. receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots.
\n
\nNot being ImmaculateA Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are disputed (but not those which have been vacated). A Player with no such Payment Orders is Immaculate. It is a Win-Preventing Condition. condition for a Player to have one or more Blots.
\n'),(37699,1435,496278,496279,' the Herald. Herald. The Mintor of Indulgences is the Bank.
\n
\nA Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of which is the Bank, is called a Blot. When a Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots.
\n
\n been vacated). A vacated or satisfied). A Player with no such Payment Orders is Immaculate. It is a Win-Preventing condition for a Player to have one or more Blots.
\n'),(37700,1435,496279,496280,' The MUQ of Indulgences is 1. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald. The The Mintor of Indulgences is the Bank.
\n
\nA Payment Order for 1 Indulgence,The Herald\'s Report includes the payee of which is the Bank, is called a Blot. When a Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to possessed by each entity which possesses them, and the number changes thereof since the last posting of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots. Herald\'s Report.
\n
\nA Payment Order for a number of Indulgences, the payee of which is the Bank, is known as that number of Blots. When a Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots.
\n
\nA Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are disputed (but not those which have been vacated or satisfied). A vacated). A Player with no such Payment Orders is Immaculate. It is a Win-Preventing condition for a Player to have one or more Blots.
\n'),(37701,1435,496280,496281,'Indulgences are a Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is 1. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald. The Mintor of Indulgences is the Bank.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report includes the number of Indulgences possessed by each entity which possesses them, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.
\n
\nA Payment Order for a number of Indulgences, the payee of which is the Bank, is known as that number of Blots. When a Rule states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots.
\n
\n is Immaculate. It is a Win-Preventing condition for a Player to have one or more Blots. Immaculate.
\n'),(37702,1435,496281,496282,' a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is 1. .1. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald. The Mintor of Indulgences is the Bank. Herald.
\n
\nThe Herald\'s Report includes the number of Indulgences possessedA Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by each entity which possesses them, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report. Herald.
\n
\nA Payment Order for a number of Indulgences, the payee of which isWhenever the Bank, is known as that number of Blots. When a Rule states Rules state that a Player gains or is to gain assessed some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for specify a number method of Indulgences equal reporting that gain or assessment to the Herald, the Herald shall record this increase in the number of Blots that staining the affected Player is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is required to report as soon as possible after receiving the change in Blots. notification.
\n
\nA PlayerBlots may be said expunged from a Player\'s record as follows:
\n
\ni. The Rules authorize the expunging of Blots and specify a method by which this is reported to have the Herald.
\n
\nii. The Executor of an entity may expunge a number of Blots by transferring to the Bank a number of Indulgences equal to the sum number of Blots to be expunged, specifying the amounts Blotted Player and the purpose of all Payment Orders the transfer. Such a transfer may not be made for any other purpose. If the transfer specifies a number of Indulgences naming em as greater than the payor and number of Blots staining the Bank Blotted Player, then that transfer shall be deemed invalid.
\n
\niii. The Player originally reporting the imposition of a Blot penalty may expunge the reported Blots, if e determines that the penalty was imposed in error.
\n
\niv. Blots may be expunged by Judicial or Appellate Orders.
\n
\nThe Herald shall record the decrease in the number of Blots staining a Player as payee, including orders which are disputed (but not those soon as possible after receiving notification of the expungement or after successfully executing the relevant Indulgence Transfer Order.
\n
\nThe Rules may define other methods by which have been vacated). A Player the Herald may be required to record changes to a Player\'s Blot status.
\n
\nA player with no such Payment Orders zero Blots staining eir record is said to be Immaculate.
\n'),(37703,1435,496282,496283,'Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is .1. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.
\n
\nA Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or assessment to the Herald, the Herald shall record this increase in the number of Blots staining the affected Player as soon as possible after receiving the notification.
\n
\nBlots may be expunged from a Player\'s record as follows:
\n
\ni. The Rules authorize the expunging of Blots and specify a method by which this is reported to the Herald.
\n
\n by transferring to the Bank a number of Indulgences equal to posting publicly the number of Blots to be expunged, specifying the Blotted Player expunged and the purpose of Player to whom the transfer. Such Blots belong and Paying a transfer may not be made for any other purpose. If the transfer specifies Fee of a number of Indulgences greater than equal to the number of Blots staining the Blotted Player, then that transfer shall to be deemed invalid. expunged. Any attempt to expunge more of a Player\'s Blots than e has fails.
\n
\niii. The Player originally reporting the imposition of a Blot penalty may expunge the reported Blots, if e determines that the penalty was imposed in error.
\n
\niv. Blots may be expunged by Judicial or Appellate Orders.
\n
\nThe Herald shall record the decrease in the number of Blots staining a Player as soon as possible after receiving notification of the expungement or after successfully executing the relevant Indulgence Transfer Order.
\n
\nThe Rules may define other methods by which the Herald may be required to record changes to a Player\'s Blot status.
\n
\n be Immaculate. Immaculate. Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing condition.
\n'),(37704,1435,496283,496284,' Currency. The The MUQ of Indulgences is .1. 0.1. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.
\n
\nA Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or assessment to the Herald, the Herald shall record this increase in the number of Blots staining the affected Player as soon as possible after receiving the notification.
\n
\nBlots may be are expunged from a Player\'s record as follows: when: (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences, specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned to the transferor); or (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots are to be expunged, provided that such method must include a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.
\n
\ni. The Rules authorize the expunging ofA player with zero Blots and specify a method by which this staining eir record is reported said to the Herald. be Immaculate.
\n
\nii. The Executor of an entity may expunge a number of Blots by posting publicly the number of Blots to be expunged and the Player to whom the Blots belong and Paying a Fee of a number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots to be expunged. Any attempt to expunge more of a Player\'s Blots than e has fails.
\n
\niii. The Player originally reporting the imposition of a Blot penalty may expunge the reported Blots, if e determines that the penalty was imposed in error.
\n
\niv. Blots may be expunged by Judicial or Appellate Orders.
\n
\nThe Herald shall record the decrease in the number of Blots staining a Player as soon as possible after receiving notification of the expungement or after successfully executing the relevant Indulgence Transfer Order.
\n
\nThe Rules may define other methods by which the Herald may be required to record changes to a Player\'s Blot status.
\n
\nA player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be Immaculate. NotNot being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing condition. Condition.
\n'),(37705,1435,496284,404642,' The MUQ Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ) of Indulgences is 0.1. The The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.
\n
\nA Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.
\n
\n Herald, then, as soon as possible after receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record this an increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready, of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in the number of Blots staining the affected Player as soon as possible after receiving the notification. Player.
\n
\nBlots are expunged from a Player\'s record when: (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences, specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned to the transferor); or (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots are to be expunged, provided that such method must include a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.
\n
\nA player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be Immaculate.
\n
\nNot being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(37706,1435,404642,404777,' is 0.1. 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.
\n
\nA Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or assessment to the Herald, then, as soon as possible after receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record an increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready, of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in the number of Blots staining the affected Player.
\n
\nBlots are expunged from a Player\'s record when: (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences, specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned to the transferor); or (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots are to be expunged, provided that such method must include a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.
\n
\nA player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be Immaculate.
\n
\nNot being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(37707,1435,404777,404881,'Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ) of Indulgences is 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.
\n
\nA Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or assessment to the Herald, then, as soon as possible after receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record an increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready, of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in the number of Blots staining the affected Player.
\n
\nBlots are expunged from a Player\'s record when: (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences, specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned to the transferor); or (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots are to be expunged, provided that such method must include a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.
\n
\nA player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be Immaculate.
\n
\nNot being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n'),(37708,1435,404881,496288,'Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ) of Indulgences is 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.
\n'),(37709,1436,496289,496290,' or Herald." Herald.
\n
\nThe Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined in the Rules.
\n
\nOnce a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the reason for the gain in Blots.
\n
\nThe Tabulator\'s salary shall be four Points per Week.
\n
\nIf any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the change in Blots is canceled.
\n
\nIf a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred, whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.
\n'),(37710,1436,496290,496291,' there be exist the Office of Tabulator. A vacant Office of Tabulator is filled in the usual manner, but the Scorekeepor or Herald may not become Tabulator, nor may the Tabulator become Scorekeepor or Herald. Tabulator.
\n
\nThe Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined in the Rules.
\n
\nOnce a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the reason for the gain in Blots.
\n
\nThe Tabulator\'s salary shall be four Points per Week.
\n
\nIf any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the change in Blots is canceled.
\n
\nIf a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred, whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.
\n'),(37711,1436,496291,496292,'Let there exist the Office of Tabulator.
\n
\nThe Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined in the Rules.
\n
\nOnce a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the reason for the gain in Blots.
\n
\n four Points Mils per Week.
\n
\nIf any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the change in Blots is canceled.
\n
\nIf a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred, whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.
\n'),(37712,1436,496292,496293,'Let there exist the Office of Tabulator.
\n
\nThe Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined in the Rules.
\n
\nOnce a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the reason for the gain in Blots.
\n
\nThe Tabulator\'s salary Tabulator shall be four Mils per Week. receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\nIf any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the change in Blots is canceled.
\n
\nIf a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred, whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.
\n'),(37713,1436,496293,496294,''),(37714,1437,496295,496296,'If a Player who is not Immaculate is deregistered and subsequently returns to the Game, e returns with B/(2^T) Blots, where B is the number of Blots the Player had upon deregistering, and T is the number of months since eir deregistration. The number of Blots thus received is rounded down to the next whole integer, but not reduced below one Blot.
\n
\nIf a Immaculate Player deregisters, e is also Immaculate upon returning to the Game.
\n
\nIf a former Player returns to the Game and has no Blots recorded, e is Immaculate upon eir return.
\n
\n the Tabulator. Herald.
\n'),(37715,1437,496296,496297,' e returns with receives B/(2^T) Blots, where B is the number of Blots the Player had upon deregistering, and T is the number of months since eir deregistration. The number of Blots thus received is rounded down to the next whole integer, but not reduced below one Blot.
\n
\nIf a Immaculate Player deregisters, e is also Immaculate upon returning to the Game.
\n
\nIfHowever, if a former Player returns to the Game and has no Blots recorded, e is Immaculate receives no Blots upon eir return.
\n
\nBlot Changes due to this Rule are detected and reported by the Herald.
\n'),(37716,1437,496297,496298,'If aWhen an Player who is not Immaculate is deregistered and subsequently returns to from the Game, game while not Immaculate, e becomes a Fugitive from Justice, and e receives B/(2^T) Blots, where B is the number of Fugitive Blots the Player had upon deregistering, and T is equal to the number of months since eir deregistration. Blots e then had. The Herald shall keep a record of the number of Fugitive Blots thus received is rounded down attributed to the next whole integer, but not reduced below one Blot. each Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\nHowever, if a former Player returns toAt the Game and has no beginning of each month, the Herald shall halve the number of Fugitive Blots recorded, e receives attributed to each Fugitive of Justice, rounding down; but no Fugitive from Justice shall have the number of Fugitive Blots upon eir return. attributed to em reduced to less than one by this method.
\n
\nBlot Changes dueWhen a Fugitive from Justice reregisters, the Herald shall assess against em a number of Blots equal to this Rule are detected and reported by the Herald. number of Fugitive Blots attributed to em at the time of eir reregistration. Eir Fugitive Blots are then removed.
\n'),(37717,1437,496298,496299,'When an a Player is deregistered from the game while not Immaculate, e becomes a Fugitive from Justice, and e receives Fugitive Blots equal to the number of Blots e then had. The Herald shall keep a record of the number of Fugitive Blots attributed to each Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\nAt the beginning of each month, the Herald shall halve the number of Fugitive Blots attributed to each Fugitive of Justice, rounding down; but no Fugitive from Justice shall have the number of Fugitive Blots attributed to em reduced to less than one by this method.
\n
\nWhen a Fugitive from Justice reregisters, the Herald shall assess against em a number of Blots equal to the number of Fugitive Blots attributed to em at the time of eir reregistration. Eir Fugitive Blots are then removed.
\n'),(37718,1437,496299,496300,' from Justice, and e receives Fugitive Blots equal to the number of Blots e then had. Justice. The Herald shall continue to keep a record of the number of Fugitive Blots attributed to staining each Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n of Fugitive Blots attributed to staining each Fugitive of Justice, rounding down; but no Fugitive from Justice shall have the eir number of Fugitive Blots attributed to em reduced to less than one by this method.
\n
\n reregisters, the Herald shall assess against em a number of Blots equal e ceases to the number of be a Fugitive Blots attributed to em at the time from Justice. The act of reregistration causes no change in eir reregistration. Eir Fugitive Blots are then removed. number of Blots.
\n'),(37719,1437,496300,404648,''),(37720,1437,404648,404888,' Player deregisters or is deregistered from the game while not Immaculate, deregistered, e becomes keeps eir Stain (though it may be modified by other Rules). A non-Player with a Fugitive from Justice. The Herald shall continue to keep non-zero Stain is known as a record of the number Blots staining each Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\n of each the month, the Herald shall halve expunge half the number of Blots staining of each Fugitive of Justice, rounding down; but from Justice; however, no Fugitive from Justice shall have eir number of Blots Stain reduced to less than one by this method.
\n
\nWhen a Fugitive from Justice reregisters, e ceases to be a Fugitive from Justice. The act of reregistration causes no change in eir number of Blots. method.
\n'),(37721,1437,404888,496302,'When a Player deregisters or is deregistered, e keeps eir Stain (though it may be modified by other Rules). A non-Player with a non-zero Stain is known as a Fugitive from Justice.
\n
\nAt the beginning of the month, the Herald shall expunge half the Blots of each Fugitive from Justice; however, no Fugitive from Justice shall have eir Stain reduced to less than one by this method.
\n'),(37722,1439,496304,496305,'If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ.
\n
\nThe Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Tabulator.
\n
\nIf such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the CFJ, unless e already had fewer than that number of Blots, in which case e shall lose all his Blots. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for reporting that loss to the Tabulator
\n'),(37723,1439,496305,496306,'If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ.
\n
\n the Tabulator. Herald
\n
\n the Tabulator Herald.
\n'),(37724,1439,496306,496307,'If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ.
\n
\nThe Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Herald
\n
\n the CFJ, unless e already had fewer than that number of Blots, in which case e shall lose all his Blots. CFJ. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for reporting that loss to the Herald.
\n'),(37725,1439,496307,496308,' For Judgment Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ.
\n
\nThe Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Herald
\n
\nIf such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the CFJ. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for reporting that loss to the Herald.
\n'),(37726,1439,496308,496309,' the Mutability Index Power of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Mutability Index Power exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ.
\n
\nThe Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Herald
\n
\nIf such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the CFJ. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for reporting that loss to the Herald.
\n'),(37727,1439,496309,496310,'If a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Power of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Power exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the case of a CFJ.
\n
\n CFJ has shall make the Legal Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ Payment Orders necessary to apply the Herald Blots.
\n
\n shall lose vacate the same number of Blots as that were given due to the initial Judgement of the CFJ. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for reporting that loss to the Herald. CFJ.
\n'),(37728,1439,496310,496311,' exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of four, unless the violated Rule when it explicitly defines or forbids a Blot penalty in the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties CFJ. The penalty shall be as defined in the case of a CFJ. Rule, if the Rule defines it; no Blot penalty shall be imposed if the Rule forbids it.
\n
\n shall make notify the Payment Orders necessary to apply Herald of the Blots. Blot assessment.
\n
\n shall vacate expunge the Blots that were given due to the initial Judgement of the CFJ. CFJ and notify the Herald of this action.
\n'),(37729,1439,496311,404647,'If a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Power of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Power exceeds four, unless the violated Rule explicitly defines or forbids a Blot penalty in the case of a CFJ. The penalty shall be as defined in the Rule, if the Rule defines it; no Blot penalty shall be imposed if the Rule forbids it.
\n
\nThe Player who initially called for the CFJ shall notify the Herald of the Blot assessment.
\n
\nIf such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the Player who received Blots shall expunge the Blots that were given due to the initial Judgement of the CFJ and notify the Herald of this action.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37730,1439,404647,405081,'IfViolating a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player receives Blots equal to the Power Class N Crime of the violated Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its Power exceeds four, Disobedience, unless the violated Rule explicitly defines other Rules define or forbids a Blot penalty in the case of prohibit a CFJ. The penalty shall be as defined in the Rule, if the Rule defines it; no Blot penalty shall be imposed if the Rule forbids it.
\n
\nThe Player who initially called for the CFJ shall notify the Herald of the Blot assessment.
\n
\nIf such a Judgement violation. N is overturned upon appeal, then the Player who received Blots shall expunge Power of the Blots that were given due violated Rule (rounded down to the initial Judgement nearest multiple of the CFJ and notify the Herald MUQ of this action. Indulgences), but shall not exceed 4.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37731,1439,405081,405183,' nearest multiple of the MUQ of Indulgences), but shall not exceed 4. integer), or 4, whichever is less.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37732,1439,405183,496314,'Violating a Rule is the Class N Crime of Disobedience, unless other Rules define or prohibit a penalty for the violation. N is the Power of the violated Rule (rounded down to the nearest integer), or 4, whichever is less.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37733,1440,496315,496316,'A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as e does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with less than five Points may not Erase Blots.
\n
\n Player Erasing Blots must report to notify both the Tabulator Scorekeepor and the Scorekeepor Tabulator, in the Public Forum, of the number of Blots e is Erasing, erasing, and the number of Points required e is spending to do so.
\n
\nIf this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost.
\n
\n the Scorekeepor reduces the Player\'s Points by the required amount Point and Blot totals are reduced by the Tabulator reduces the Player\'s Blots as requested. requested amount.
\n
\nOther rules may define additional methods of Erasing Blots.
\n'),(37734,1440,496316,496317,' Player may Erase eir who has at least one Blot is permitted to remove any or all of those Blots by spending sending a message to the Public Forum indicating how many Blots e wishes to remove. If that Player\'s Treasury contains at least five Points for each Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any to be removed, then that number of Points is transferred from the Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots as long as e does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with less than five are removed; otherwise, no Points may not Erase Blots. are transferred and no Blots are removed.
\n
\nThe Player must notify both the Scorekeepor shall detect and the Tabulator, in the Public Forum, of the number of Blots e is erasing, and the number of Points e is spending to do so.
\n
\nIf this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost.
\n
\nIf there are sufficient Points, the Player\'s Point report all transfers and Blot totals are reduced by Changes resulting from the requested amount.
\n
\nOther rules may define additional methods application of Erasing Blots. this Rule.
\n'),(37735,1440,496317,496318,' five Points Mils for each Blot to be removed, then that number of Points Mils is transferred from the Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no Points Mils are transferred and no Blots are removed.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor Banker shall detect and report all transfers and Blot Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.
\n'),(37736,1440,496318,496320,' five Mils Mil for each Blot to be removed, then that number of Mils Mil is transferred from the Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no Mils Mil are transferred and no Blots are removed.
\n
\nThe Banker shall detect and report all transfers and Blot Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.
\n'),(37737,1440,496320,496321,' least five Mil 1 VT for each Blot to be removed, then that number of Mil VTs is transferred from the Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no Mil are transferred and no Blots are removed.
\n
\nThe Banker Herald shall detect and report all transfers and Blot Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.
\n'),(37738,1440,496321,496322,' no Mil VTs are transferred and no Blots are removed.
\n
\nThe Herald shall detect and report all transfers and Blot Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.
\n'),(37739,1441,496323,496324,' loses Points a number of Mils equal to the number of eir Blots. Every Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved, rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.
\n
\n the Point Mark losses to the Scorekeepor. Banker.
\n'),(37740,1441,496324,496325,' new Game, quarter, any Player with Blots immediately loses a number of Mils equal to the number of eir Blots. Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved, rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.
\n
\nDetecting and reporting this Blot change is the Tabulator\'s responsibility. The Tabulator reports the Mark losses to the Banker.
\n'),(37741,1441,496325,496326,' of Mils Mil equal to the number of eir Blots. Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved, rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.
\n
\nDetecting and reporting this Blot change is the Tabulator\'s responsibility. The Tabulator reports the Mark losses to the Banker.
\n'),(37742,1441,496326,496327,'Upon beginning a new quarter, any Player with Blots immediately loses a number of Mil equal to the number of eir Blots. Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved, rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.
\n
\n the Tabulator\'s Herald\'s responsibility. The Tabulator Herald reports the Mark losses to the Banker.
\n'),(37743,1441,496327,496328,' of Mil VTs equal to the number of eir Blots. Every Blots divided by five, rounded up to the nearest 0.5 VT. Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved, rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.
\n
\n the Mark VT losses to the Banker. Assessor.
\n'),(37744,1442,496329,496330,'Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.
\n
\nA Player casts an extra Vote by notifying the Assessor that e is doing so, at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself.
\n
\nIf, at the moment the Player casts an extra Vote, e possesses at least one Extra Vote, then the casted Vote is legal, and one Extra Vote is transferred from the Treasury of the Player to the Bank. Otherwise, the casted Vote is not legal, and no transfer takes place.
\n
\nAll transfers required by this Rule shall be detected and reported by the Assessor.
\n'),(37745,1442,496330,496331,'Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.
\n
\nA Player casts an extra Vote by notifying the Assessor that e is doing so, at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself.
\n
\n the casted Vote cast is legal, and one Extra Vote is transferred from the Treasury of the Player to the Bank. Otherwise, the casted Vote is not legal, and no transfer takes place.
\n
\nAll transfers required by this Rule shall be detected and reported by the Assessor.
\n'),(37746,1442,496331,496332,'Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.
\n
\n Vote itself. itself. Extra Votes may only be cast on a Proposal during the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\n the Extra Vote cast is legal, legally cast, and one Extra Vote is transferred from the Treasury of the Player to the Bank. Otherwise, the casted Extra Vote is not legal, legally cast, and no transfer takes place.
\n
\nAll transfers required by this Rule shall be detected and reported by the Assessor.
\n'),(37747,1442,496332,496333,'Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.
\n
\nA Player casts an extra Vote by notifying the Assessor that e is doing so, at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself. Extra Votes may only be cast on a Proposal during the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n
\n Extra Vote, Vote not in Limbo, then the Extra Vote is legally cast, and one Extra Vote is transferred from the Treasury of the Player to is put in Limbo until the Bank. Otherwise, end of the Extra Vote is not legally cast, and no transfer takes place.
\n
\nAll transfers required by this Rule shall be detected and reported by Voting Period of the Assessor. Proposal specified.
\n'),(37748,1442,496333,496334,'Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a PlayerThe casting of any votes may use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to only be achieved by the maximum allowed to them for that Proposal, spending of VTs, as specified in other Rules. below.
\n
\n Player casts an extra Vote spends a VT to cast a vote on a Proposal currently up for vote by notifying the Assessor that e is doing so, and at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself. Extra Votes may only vote will be cast on a Proposal during on, and what the Voting Period of that Proposal. vote shall be.
\n
\n Player casts an extra Vote, spends a VT in this way, e possesses at least one Extra Vote full VT not in Limbo, then the Extra Vote VT is legally cast, spent, one vote is made towards the Proposal in question, and one Extra Vote of VT in the Player Player\'s Treasury is put in Limbo until the end of the Voting Period of the Proposal specified. specified. This shall be noted and recorded by the Assessor.
\n
\nIf, at the time a Player attempts to spend a VT in this manner, e does not have 1 VT not in Limbo, no VT of eirs is put into Limbo, and e does not cast that vote.
\n
\nIf several votes are contained in a single message, each vote is considered a separate action. If several votes are cast on the same Proposal, each vote is considered a separate action.
\n'),(37749,1442,496334,496335,'The casting of any votes may only be achieved by the spending of VTs, as specified below.
\n
\nA Player spends a VT to cast a vote on Voting Entity Votes upon a Proposal currently up for vote by notifying when e, during the Assessor Voting Period of that Proposal, informs the Assessor of the Vote (or Votes) e is doing so, and at casting upon that Proposal. This act also comprises the same time specifying implicit submission of a delayed Transfer Order from the Proposal which Voting Entity to the vote will be Bank for however many VTs are necessary to cast on, those Votes, to be executed at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal, and what also the vote shall be. implicit cancellation of all other delayed Transfer Orders submitted but not yet executed by Voting on that Proposal.
\n
\nIf, at the moment the Player spends a VT in this way,A Voting Entity may specify that e possesses at least one full VT not in Limbo, then the VT is legally spent, one vote is made towards the Proposal in question, casts no Votes on a Proposal, and one VT in the Player\'s Treasury is put in Limbo until the end of doing so cancels any previously Votes cast on that Proposal (if done during the Voting Period of the Proposal specified. This shall be noted that Proposal) and recorded cancels any delayed Transfer Orders submitted but not yet executed by the Assessor. Voting on that Proposal.
\n
\nIf, at the time a Player attempts to spend a VT in this manner, e does not have 1 VT not in Limbo, no VT of eirs is put into Limbo, and e does not cast that vote.
\n
\nIf several votes are contained in a single message, each vote is consideredA Voting Entity\'s Votes on a separate action. If several votes given Proposal are cast on counted for that Proposal only if the same Proposal, each vote delayed Transfer Order implicitly submitted by Voting on that Proposal is considered a separate action. successfully executed at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal.
\n'),(37750,1442,496335,496336,'The castingA Voting Entity votes upon a Proposal when, during the Voting Period of any that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is authorized to vote on that Proposal. A Voting Entity may only be achieved by inform the Assessor that e casts no votes on a Proposal, and doing so cancels any votes e has previously cast on that Proposal, if this is done during the spending Voting Period of VTs, as specified below. that Proposal. Cancelled votes are not counted by the Assessor and do not count towards Quorum.
\n
\nA Voting Entity Votes upon a Proposal when e, duringAs soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of that a Proposal, informs the Assessor of the Vote (or Votes) e is casting upon that Proposal. This act also comprises the implicit submission of a delayed Transfer Order from the shall bill each Voting Entity to the Bank one Voting Token for however many VTs are necessary to each uncancelled vote cast those Votes, to be executed at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal, and also the implicit cancellation of all other delayed Transfer Orders submitted but not yet executed by that Voting Entity on that Proposal.
\n
\nA In the case where a Voting Entity may specify that e casts no Votes has cast more than one vote on a Proposal, and doing so cancels any previously Votes or a Voting Entity has cast votes on that Proposal (if done during more than one Proposal, the Voting Period results of that Proposal) and cancels any delayed Transfer Orders submitted but not yet executed by Voting on that Proposal.
\n
\nA which the Assessor has published at the same time, the Assessor is permitted to bill the Voting Entity\'s Votes on a given Proposal are counted Entity for that Proposal only if an amount of Voting Tokens equivalent to all the delayed Transfer Order implicitly submitted uncancelled votes cast by the Voting Entity on that Proposal is successfully executed at the end those Proposals, instead of billing the Voting Period of that Proposal. Entity once for each uncancelled vote e cast.
\n'),(37751,1442,496336,496337,' Entity votes Votes upon a Proposal when, when e, during the Voting Period of that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or votes Vote (or Votes) e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is authorized to vote on that Proposal. A Voting Entity may inform the Assessor that e casts no votes on a Proposal, and doing so cancels any votes e has previously cast on that Proposal, if this is done during the Voting Period of that Proposal. Cancelled votes are not counted by the Assessor and do not count towards Quorum. Proposal.
\n
\nAsA Voting Entity may specify that e casts no Votes on a Proposal, and doing so cancels any previously Votes cast on that Proposal (if done during the Voting Period of that Proposal). Cancelled Votes are not counted by the Assessor and do not count toward Quorum.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity one Voting Token for each uncancelled vote cast by that Voting Entity on that Proposal. In the case where a Voting Entity has cast more than one vote on a Proposal, or a Voting Entity has cast votes on more than one Proposal, the results number of which the Assessor has published at the same time, the Assessor is permitted VTs equal to bill the Voting Entity for an amount cost of Voting Tokens equivalent to all the uncancelled votes Votes cast by the Voting Entity on those Proposals, instead of billing the Voting Entity once for each uncancelled vote e cast. that Proposal by that entity.
\n'),(37752,1442,496337,496338,'A Voting Entity Votes upon a Proposal when e, during the Voting Period of that Proposal, informs the Assessor of the Vote (or Votes) e is casting upon that Proposal.
\n
\nA Voting Entity may specify that e casts no Votes on a Proposal, and doing so cancels any previously Votes cast on that Proposal (if done during the Voting Period of that Proposal). Cancelled Votes are not counted by the Assessor and do not count toward Quorum.
\n
\nAsAs soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity a number of VTs Voting Tokens equal to the cost of the Votes votes cast on that Proposal by that entity.
\n'),(37753,1442,496338,496339,'AsProposals have a voting cost, equal to the Voting Tariff at the time they were distributed. If there was no value set for the Voting Tariff at that time, then the voting cost is 1 VT.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity a number of Voting Tokens equal to the votes cast on that Proposal by that entity. entity multiplied by the voting cost for that Proposal.
\n'),(37754,1442,496339,496340,'ProposalsVotes on Proposals have a voting cost, equal to based on the Voting Tariff and Voting Factor at the time they were distributed. If there was either of these had no value set for the Voting Tariff at that time, then the voting cost is they are deemed to have been 1 VT. VT and 1, respectively.
\n
\nAsThe voting cost of an entity\'s first vote on an Interested Proposal is equal to the Voting Tariff. The voting cost of each additional vote by that entity on that Proposal is equal to the previous vote\'s cost multiplied by the Voting Factor, then rounded up to the nearest multiple of the MUQ of VTs.
\n
\nThe voting cost for all votes on a Disinterested Proposal is zero.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity that voted on the Proposal as follows:
\n
\n(1) For each FOR vote cast on the Proposal, a number of Positively charged Voting Tokens equal to the votes total cost of those votes.
\n
\n(2) For each AGAINST vote cast on that Proposal by that entity multiplied by the voting Proposal, a number of Negatively charged Voting Tokens equal to the total cost for that Proposal. of those votes.
\n
\n(3) For each ABSTAIN vote cast on the Proposal, a number of Voting Tokens equal to the total cost of those votes.
\n'),(37755,1442,496340,496341,'Votes on Proposals have a voting cost, based onAs soon as possible after the Voting Tariff and Voting Factor at end of the time they were distributed. If either Voting Period of these had no value set at an Interested Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each entity that time, then they are deemed to have been 1 VT and 1, respectively. voted on the Proposal as follows:
\n
\nThe voting cost of an entity\'s first vote(1) For N FOR votes cast on an Interested Proposal is equal to the Voting Tariff. The voting cost of each additional vote by that entity on that Proposal is equal to the previous vote\'s cost multiplied by the Voting Factor, then rounded up to the nearest multiple of the MUQ of VTs. Proposal, N squared +VTs.
\n
\nThe voting cost for all(2) For N AGAINST votes cast on a Disinterested Proposal is zero. the Proposal, N squared -VTs.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Entity that voted on the Proposal as follows:
\n
\n(1)(3) For each FOR vote cast on the Proposal, a number of Positively charged Voting Tokens equal to the total cost of those votes.
\n
\n(2) For each AGAINST vote cast on the Proposal, a number of Negatively charged Voting Tokens equal to the total cost of those votes.
\n
\n(3) For each N ABSTAIN vote votes cast on the Proposal, a number of Voting Tokens equal to the total cost of those votes. N squared VTs.
\n'),(37756,1442,496341,496342,' an Interested Interested, Democratic Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each entity that voted on the Proposal as follows:
\n
\n(1) For N FOR votes cast on a number of Voting Tokens equal to the Proposal, N squared +VTs.
\n
\n(2) For N AGAINST votes cast on square of the Proposal, N squared -VTs.
\n
\n(3) For N ABSTAIN total number of votes (FOR, AGAINST and ABSTAIN) cast on by the Proposal, N squared VTs. entity on that Proposal.
\n'),(37757,1443,496343,496344,'A Proposal may be proto-Proposed by sending it to Proto-Proposal is any text which meets the Public Forum and identifying it as a proto-Proposal. following conditions:
\n
\nA proposal which passes, and which was proto-proposed in* it has been sent to the Public Forum * the author of the same form message containing the Proto-Proposal is verifiable * the author has clearly identified the text as a Proto-Proposal
\n
\nA Proposal is considered to have been Proto-Proposed if a Proto-Proposal has been made between four three and fourteen days before being prior to the Proposal\'s submission, which is identical to the submitted as a proposal, Proposal.
\n
\nThe Proposer of any Proposal which has been Proto-Proposed and which Passes shall earn its proposer an extra receive two points at Points upon the end publishing of the voting period. Voting Results of that Proposal. The Assessor is responsible for reporting this score change.
\n'),(37758,1443,496344,496345,'A Proto-Proposal is any text which meets the following conditions:
\n
\n* it has been sent to the Public Forum * the author of the message containing the Proto-Proposal is verifiable * the author has clearly identified the text as a Proto-Proposal
\n
\n is considered to have been Proto-Proposed if and only if a Proto-Proposal which is identical to the submitted Proposal has been made between three and fourteen days prior to the Proposal\'s submission, which and the Assessor is identical informed of this fact prior to the submitted conclusion of the Voting Period for that Proposal.
\n
\nThe Proposer of any Proposal which has been Proto-Proposed and which Passes shall receive two Points upon the publishing of Voting Results of that Proposal. The Assessor is responsible for reporting this score change.
\n'),(37759,1443,496345,496346,'A Proto-Proposal is any text which meets the following conditions:
\n
\n* it has been sent to the Public Forum * the author of the message containing the Proto-Proposal is verifiable * the author has clearly identified the text as a Proto-Proposal
\n
\nA Proposal is Proto-Proposed if and only if a Proto-Proposal which is identical to the submitted Proposal has been made between three and fourteen days prior to the Proposal\'s submission, and the Assessor is informed of this fact prior to the conclusion of the Voting Period for that Proposal.
\n
\n Assessor is responsible for reporting shall report this score change. transfer, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question.
\n'),(37760,1445,404511,404833,' used. Details Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\n the result. Unless otherwise specified, results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum starts shall be the Vote Collector. Election begins.
\n
\nIf* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the winner of the Voting Period ends, Election, then the Election has no Winner. winner.
\n
\n Nominator: Each Active Player may A Nominator is an entity permitted to Nominate emself a Candidate in an Election. On Hold status Only Active Players are Nominators. Activity is measured at the time a Player makes or attempts to make a Nomination. Nomination is sent.
\n
\n* Nomination: Prospective: A Nominator makes a Nomination by sending a message Prospective is an entity permitted to be Nominated as a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Prospectives. Activity is measured at the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period indicating for which Election e time a Nomination is Nominating. sent.
\n
\n* Candidates: Nominating: A Player who has Nominated for an Nominator Nominates a Prospective by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the Prospective is called a Candidate for that Election. not explicitly identified, then it is the same as the Nominator.
\n
\n* Retraction: Candidates: A Nomination, once sent to the Vote Collector, may be retracted before the end of the Nominating Period. A player may retract Candidate for an Election is a Nomination e Prospective who has made by sending a message to the Vote Collector, indicating been Nominated in that e wishes to retract eir Nomination. Election.
\n
\n* Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at Retraction: A Nominator may retract eir Nomination by sending a message to the time of Vote Collector during the first correct and legal announcement that Nominating Period, indicating the Election has begun, as required by and the Prospective. If the Rules calling for Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same as the Election. Nominator.
\n
\n* Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one Week. All Nominations received Declination: A Prospective may decline eir Nomination by sending a message to the Vote Collector outside of during the Nominating Period have no effect. Period, indicating the Election. Upon doing so, e may not be re-Nominated in that Election by anyone but emself.
\n
\n* Secrecy: Mode of Nominations: There are three Modes of Nominations: Selfish, Selfless, or Open. The Vote Collector may specify a Mode of Nominations need not be kept secret. when e announces the start of the Election; if e does not, then the Mode is Selfish.
\n
\n* Announcing Candidates : the Vote Collector shall publicly announce, as soon as possible after the Nominating Period is over, the names of all Players who Nominated for the Election.(a) In a Selfish Election, a Nominator may Nominate only emself. (b) In a Selfless Election, a Nominator may not Nominate emself. (c) In an Open Election, a Nominator may Nominate any Prospective.
\n
\nIf there are no Candidates in a given Election, then* Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal announcement that an Election shall have no Winner. If there is only one Candidate has begun, as defined in a given Election, then that Candidate shall be other Rules. Such an announcement must include the Winner identity of that Election. the Vote Collector.
\n
\nIn all other cases, a Referendum shall being at the time Candidates are Announced, which shall be conducted using the standard procedure* Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for Referendum Voting with one Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside of the following exceptions : Nominating Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the same as the Vote Collector for the Election. Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is the name End of exactly one Nominations: As soon as possible after the end of the Candidates for Nominating Period, the Vote Collector shall publish a list of all Candidates. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible. Election has no winner.
\n
\n* Adoption: The Winner ofIf there are no Candidates, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\nIf there is exactly one Candidate, then e is the Candidate for whom the most votes were cast. If winner of that Election.
\n
\nIf there is are two or more than one such candidate, Candidates, then a Referendum begins when the Speaker chooses one Vote Collector publishes the list of those candidates as Candidates. This is a standard Referendum, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the winner, and must publicly announce eir chosen candidate Referendum is the same as winner. the Vote Collector for the Election.
\n
\n* Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting Entities at Vote Values: A Vote is the beginning name of exactly one Candidate for the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction voted, the Election has no Winner. given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must perform eir required duties, but if the result Failure of an Election Referendum: If the Referendum fails for any reason (e.g. Quorum is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting Period, achieved), then the Election has no Winner. winner.
\n
\n* Effective Time of Election Results: Adoption: The results winner of an the Election are effective at is the time Candidate for whom the results most Votes were cast. If two or more Candidates are tied for most Votes, then the Speaker shall choose one of those Candidates, who becomes the Referendum are announced; or, if there is no Referendum, at winner when the time that Speaker announces eir choice. The Speaker shall announce eir choice as soon as possible after the Vote Collector announces that there is to be no Referendum. the results of Voting.
\n
\n* Cutoff for Challenges: Any challenge of Effectiveness: An Election takes effect when the correctness of Vote Collector correctly announces the announced results identity of its winner. The effect of an Election must be made within seven days of the time the results are announced. If seven days pass from the time the results are announced without a challenge, the announced results are the true results of that Election, whether or not they be in error in any way. is defined by other Rules.
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37761,1445,404833,405145,'When an Election is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Election Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for taking nominations, collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Election begins.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the winner of the Election, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\n* Nominator: A Nominator is an entity permitted to Nominate a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Nominators. Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent.
\n
\n* Prospective: A Prospective is an entity permitted to be Nominated as a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Prospectives. Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent.
\n
\n* Nominating: A Nominator Nominates a Prospective by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same as the Nominator.
\n
\n* Candidates: A Candidate for an Election is a Prospective who has been Nominated in that Election.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Nominator may retract eir Nomination by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same as the Nominator.
\n
\n* Declination: A Prospective may decline eir Nomination by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election. Upon doing so, e may not be re-Nominated in that Election by anyone but emself.
\n
\n* Mode of Nominations: There are three Modes of Nominations: Selfish, Selfless, or Open. The Vote Collector may specify a Mode of Nominations when e announces the start of the Election; if e does not, then the Mode is Selfish.
\n
\n(a) In a Selfish Election, a Nominator may Nominate only emself. (b) In a Selfless Election, a Nominator may not Nominate emself. (c) In an Open Election, a Nominator may Nominate any Prospective.
\n
\n* Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal announcement that an Election has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside of the Nominating Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.
\n
\n* End of Nominations: As soon as possible after the end of the Nominating Period, the Vote Collector shall publish a list of all Candidates. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\nIf there are no Candidates, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\nIf there is exactly one Candidate, then e is the winner of that Election.
\n
\nIf there are two or more Candidates, then a Referendum begins when the Vote Collector publishes the list of Candidates. This is a standard Referendum, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the same as the Vote Collector for the Election.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is the name of exactly one Candidate for the given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Failure of Referendum: If the Referendum fails for any reason (e.g. Quorum is not achieved), then the Election has no winner.
\n
\n* Adoption: The winner of the Election is the Candidate for whom the most Votes were cast. If two or more Candidates are tied for most Votes, then the Speaker shall choose one of those Candidates, who becomes the winner when the Speaker announces eir choice. The Speaker shall announce eir choice as soon as possible after the Vote Collector announces the results of Voting.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: An Election takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces the identity of its winner. The effect of an Election is defined by other Rules.
\n
\n* Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of an Election are not challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced results are the true results of that Election, even if they would otherwise be in error.
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37762,1445,405145,405376,'When an Election is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the following Standard Election Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for taking nominations, collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Election begins.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the winner of the Election, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\n* Nominator: A Nominator is an entity permitted to Nominate a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Nominators. Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent.
\n
\n* Prospective: A Prospective is an entity permitted to be Nominated as a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Prospectives. Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent.
\n
\n* Nominating: A Nominator Nominates a Prospective by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same as the Nominator.
\n
\n* Candidates: A Candidate for an Election is a Prospective who has been Nominated in that Election.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Nominator may retract eir Nomination by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same as the Nominator.
\n
\n* Declination: A Prospective may decline eir Nomination by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election. Upon doing so, e may not be re-Nominated in that Election by anyone but emself.
\n
\n* Mode of Nominations: There are three Modes of Nominations: Selfish, Selfless, or Open. The Vote Collector may specify a Mode of Nominations when e announces the start of the Election; if e does not, then the Mode is Selfish.
\n
\n(a) In a Selfish Election, a Nominator may Nominate only emself. (b) In a Selfless Election, a Nominator may not Nominate emself. (c) In an Open Election, a Nominator may Nominate any Prospective.
\n
\n* Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal announcement that an Election has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside of the Nominating Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.
\n
\n* End of Nominations: As soon as possible after the end of the Nominating Period, the Vote Collector shall publish a list of all Candidates. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\nIf there are no Candidates, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\nIf there is exactly one Candidate, then e is the winner of that Election.
\n
\nIf there are two or more Candidates, then a Referendum begins when the Vote Collector publishes the list of Candidates. This is a standard Referendum, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the same as the Vote Collector for the Election.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote is the name of exactly one Candidate for the given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Failure of Referendum: If the Referendum fails for any reason (e.g. Quorum is not achieved), then the Election has no winner.
\n
\n* Adoption: The winner of the Election is the Candidate for whom the most Votes were cast. If two or more Candidates are tied for most Votes, then the Speaker shall choose one of those Candidates, who becomes the winner when the Speaker announces eir choice. The Speaker shall announce eir choice as soon as possible after the Vote Collector announces the results of Voting.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: An Election takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces the identity of its winner. The effect of an Election is defined by other Rules.
\n
\n* Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of an Election are not challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced results are the true results of that Election, even if they would otherwise be in error.
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37763,1445,405376,405593,'When an Election is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, rules require a player to hold an election, e shall perform the following Standard Election Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations. actions in order, beginning as soon as possible:
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible(a) E shall publish a call for taking nominations, collecting and tallying nominees, optionally specifying the Votes, and announcing the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time mode of nominations for the Election begins. upcoming election. One week later, if there are no nominees, e shall repeat this step in its entirety.
\n
\n* Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector deregisters or(b) E shall initiate an election, which is deregistered before announcing the winner of the Election, then the Election has no winner. an Agoran decision. For this decision:
\n
\n* Nominator: A Nominator is an entity permitted to Nominate a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players(1) The available options are Nominators. Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent. nominees. Eir announcement initiating the election must indicate the available options.
\n
\n* Prospective: A Prospective is an entity permitted to be Nominated as a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players(2) The eligible voters are Prospectives. Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent. active players.
\n
\n* Nominating: A Nominator Nominates a Prospective by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it(3) E is the same as the Nominator. vote collector.
\n
\n* Candidates: A Candidate for an Election is a Prospective who(4) If the vote collector has been Nominated in that Election. not yet resolved the election, then any nominee may stand down by announcement. When a nominee stands down, e is removed from the list of options for the election.
\n
\n* Retraction: A Nominator may retract eir Nomination by sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it(c) The vote collector for an election is the same as the Nominator.
\n
\n* Declination: A Prospective may decline eir Nomination by sending a message required to resolve the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period, indicating the Election. Upon doing so, e may not be re-Nominated in that Election by anyone but emself.
\n
\n* Mode of Nominations: There are three Modes of Nominations: Selfish, Selfless, or Open. The Vote Collector may specify a Mode of Nominations when e announces the start of the Election; if e does not, then the Mode is Selfish.
\n
\n(a) In a Selfish Election, a Nominator may Nominate only emself. (b) In a Selfless Election, a Nominator may not Nominate emself. (c) In an Open Election, a Nominator may Nominate any Prospective.
\n
\n* Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the time of the first correct and legal announcement that an Election has begun, election as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must include the identity of the Vote Collector.
\n
\n* Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside of the Nominating Period have no effect.
\n
\n* Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.
\n
\n* End of Nominations: As soon as possible after the end of the Nominating Period, the Vote Collector shall publish a list of all Candidates. its voting period. If e does not do this as soon as possible, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\nIf there are no Candidates, then the Election has no winner.
\n
\nIf there is exactly one Candidate, then e is the winner of that Election.
\n
\nIf there are two or more Candidates, then a Referendum begins when the Vote Collector publishes the list of Candidates. This option selected by Agora is a standard Referendum, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n* Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the same as the Vote Collector for the Election.
\n
\n* Vote Values: A Vote nominee, that nominee is the name winner of exactly one Candidate for the given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.
\n
\n* Failure of Referendum: If election. Otherwise, the Referendum fails for any reason (e.g. Quorum is not achieved), then the Election election has no winner.
\n
\n* Adoption: The winner of the Election is the Candidate for whom the most Votes were cast. If two or more Candidates are tied for most Votes, then the Speaker shall choose one of those Candidates, who becomes the winner when the Speaker announces eir choice. The Speaker shall announce eir choice as soon as possible after the Vote Collector announces the results of Voting.
\n
\n* Effectiveness: An Election takes effect when the Vote Collector correctly announces the identity of its winner. The effect of an Election is defined by other Rules. winner.
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37764,1446,496348,496349,'A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund.
\n
\nIt is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster.
\n
\n all score changes and currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, administers is the Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations.
\n
\n is an entity capable a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules. The owner of owning, trading, this Treasury is the Contest, and spending Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player, but only as authorized by Executor of this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster of the Regulations. Contest.
\n
\n specify: - 1. how the a Contestmaster is replaced, - replaced. However, no person may become Contestmaster without eir consent; 2. how currencies and Points are transferred to or from the Currencies in the Contest Fund, - Fund shall be spent, so long as this does not conflict with the Rules; 3. the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, which shall be in Points, - the form of units one or more Currency; 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, - and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants; 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the new Regulations to the Public Forum, and - ways for no such change is effective until it is so posted; and 6. how the Contest to may be dissolved.
\n
\n Public Forum. Forum. A Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster.
\n
\n or upon unanimous agreement of the Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the Contestants.
\n
\nIf according to the Contest Regulations require a transfer to be made, but the Contest Fund must has insufficient currencies to permit that transfer Points and/or currency to a Contestant, and the Fund does not have be made, sufficient resources, then enough of the Contestmaster\'s Points and/or currency are transferred to the Fund currencies to cover the transaction.
\n
\nIf e does not have sufficient Points or currency transfer shall be involuntarily transferred from the Contestmaster\'s Treasury to accomplish this, then each Contestant is given back eir entry fee, and the Contest Fund. The Contestmaster loses the number of Points of shall report this transfer to the returned entry fees. The Contest is then dissolved. appropriate Recordkeepors.
\n
\nNo Blots shall be assigned by this Rule.
\n
\nThis transfer is not taxable. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency transfers are legal and/or taxable, or which would assign Blots to any Player.
\n'),(37765,1446,496349,496350,'A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund.
\n
\nIt is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations.
\n
\nThe Contest Fund is a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules. The owner of this Treasury is the Contest, and the Executor of this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster of the Contest.
\n
\n units of one or more Currency; 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants; 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the new Regulations to the Public Forum, and no such change is effective until it is so posted; and 6. how the Contest may be dissolved.
\n
\nA Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster.
\n
\nA contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no provision for replacing em, or upon unanimous agreement of the Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the Contestants.
\n
\nIf the Contest Regulations require a transfer to be made, but the Contest Fund has insufficient currencies to permit that transfer to be made, sufficient currencies to cover the transfer shall be involuntarily transferred from the Contestmaster\'s Treasury to the Contest Fund. The Contestmaster shall report this transfer to the appropriate Recordkeepors.
\n
\nNo Blots shall be assigned by this Rule.
\n'),(37766,1446,496350,496351,'A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund.
\n
\nIt is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations.
\n
\nThe Contest Fund is a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules. The owner of this Treasury is the Contest, and the Executor of this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster of the Contest.
\n
\nThe Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also specify: 1. how a Contestmaster is replaced. However, no person may become Contestmaster without eir consent; 2. how the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent, so long as this does not conflict with the Rules; 3. the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of units of one or more Currency; 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants; 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the new Regulations to the Public Forum, and no such change is effective until it is so posted; and 6. how the Contest may be dissolved.
\n
\nA Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster.
\n
\nA contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no provision for replacing em, or upon unanimous agreement of the Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the Contestants.
\n
\nIf the Contest Regulations require a transfer to be made, but the Contest Fund has insufficient currencies to permit that transfer to be made, sufficient currencies to cover the transfer shall be involuntarily transferred from the Contestmaster\'s Treasury to the Contest Fund. The Contestmaster shall report this transfer to the appropriate Recordkeepors.
\n
\nNo Blots shall be assigned by this Rule.
\n'),(37767,1446,496351,496353,'A contest isLet there be a Class of Organization known as a Contest, also known as a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name, Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund. Nomic.
\n
\nItA Contest\'s Compact is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an announcement of known as its Regulations, its Administrator is known as the contest, including Contestmaster, it has one Treasury known as the Name Contest Fund, and Regulations. Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that contest. The player making the post becomes its Executor is the Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has responsibility for administeringPlayers, other than the subgame. He reports all currency transfers taking place under Contestmaster, within the Regulations, Regulation\'s Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is always within the Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations. Regulations\' Jurisdiction.
\n
\nThe Contest Fund is a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules. The owner of this Treasury is the Contest, and the Executor of this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster Foundor of the Contest.
\n
\nThe Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also specify: 1. how a Contestmaster is replaced. However, no person may become Contestmaster without eir consent; 2. how the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent, so long as this does not conflict with the Rules; 3. the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of units of one or more Currency; 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants; 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the new Regulations to the Public Forum, and no such change is effective until it is so posted; and 6. how the Contest may be dissolved.
\n
\nA Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. its initial Contestmaster. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster.
\n
\nA contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster Public, and no provision for replacing em, or upon unanimous agreement of the Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens Notary must publish the initial Contest Fund is distributed as provided Name and Regulations in the Regulations; if no provision is made the Fund is divided equally between Public Forum As Soon As Possible after e receives them from the Contestants.
\n
\nNo Blots shall be assigned by this Rule. Contestmaster.
\n'),(37768,1446,496353,496356,'Let there be a Class ofA "Contest" is an Organization known as a Contest, also known as of Class Contest; this Class is a subgame valid Class of Agora Nomic. Organization.
\n
\nA Contest\'s Compact is known as its Regulations, its AdministratorAll Contests are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a Contest is known as the Contestmaster, it has permitted to contain any Player. Each Contest shall possess exactly one Treasury known as the Treasury. The Executor of a Contest Fund, and is, at all times, its Executor is the Contestmaster. Administrator.
\n
\nPlayers, other thanA Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contestmaster, within the Regulation\'s Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is always within the Regulations\' Jurisdiction. Contest\'s initial Administrator.
\n
\nThe Foundor of following definitions pertain to Contests:
\n
\n* Regulations: a synonym for a Contest\'s Compact. * Contestmaster: a synonym for a Contest\'s Administrator. * Contest Fund: a synonym for a Contest\'s Treasury. * Contestant: a Player who is its initial Contestmaster. A Contest part of a Contest\'s Jurisdiction, but who is Public, and the Notary must publish the initial Contest Name and Regulations in the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after e receives them from not the Contestmaster. Contest\'s Administrator.
\n'),(37769,1446,496356,496357,'A "Contest" is an Organization of Class Contest; this Class is a valid Class of Organization.
\n
\nAll Contests are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a Contest is permitted to contain any Player. Each Contest shall possess exactly one Treasury. The Executor of a Contest is, at all times, its Administrator.
\n
\nA Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Administrator.
\n
\nThe following definitions pertain to Contests:
\n
\n* Regulations: a synonym for a Contest\'s Compact. * Contestmaster: a synonym for a Contest\'s Administrator. * Contest Fund: a synonym for a Contest\'s Treasury. * Contestant: a Player who is part of a Contest\'s Jurisdiction, but who is not the Contest\'s Administrator.
\n
\nA Contest is created by distributing a copy of its initial Regulations to the Public Forum, along with the Contest\'s Name, any provisions to the contrary in the default Organization Rules notwithstanding.
\n'),(37770,1446,496357,496358,'A "Contest" is an Organization of Class Contest; this Class is a valid Class of Organization.
\n
\nAll Contests are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a Contest is permitted to contain any Player. Each Contest shall possess exactly one Treasury. The Executor of a Contest is, at all times, its Administrator.
\n
\nA Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Administrator.
\n
\nThe following definitions pertain to Contests:
\n
\n* Regulations: a synonym for a Contest\'s Compact. * Contestmaster: a synonym for a Contest\'s Administrator. * Contest Fund: a synonym for a Contest\'s Treasury. * Contestant: a Player who is part of a Contest\'s Jurisdiction, but who is not the Contest\'s Administrator.
\n
\nA Contest is created by distributing a copy of its initial Regulations to the Public Forum, along with the Contest\'s Name, any provisions to the contrary in the default Organization Rules notwithstanding.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to any Rule which restricts which Players may come to be under the Jurisdiction of a Contest, and how they may come to be.
\n'),(37771,1446,496358,496359,'A "Contest"There is an a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Class Contest; Contests. Each single Organization within this Class class is a valid Class Contest. The SLC associated with a Contest are that Contest\'s Regulations. A Contest\'s Administrator is that Contest\'s Contestmaster. A Contest\'s Contestants are those Players within the Jurisdiction of Organization. that Group\'s SLC, other than the Contestmaster.
\n
\nAll Contests are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a ContestAny Player is permitted to contain be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of any Player. Each Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest shall possess must have exactly one Treasury. The Executor of a Contest is, at all times, its Administrator. Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.
\n
\nA Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Administrator.
\n
\nThe following definitions pertainThe ACO to Contests:
\n
\n* Regulations: a synonym for a Contest\'s Compact. * Contestmaster: a synonym for create a Contest\'s Administrator. * Contest Fund: a synonym for a Contest\'s Treasury. * Contestant: a Player who is part of a Contest\'s Jurisdiction, but who is not the Contest\'s Administrator.
\n
\nA Contest is created by distributing a copy of its initial Regulations must be Posted to the Public Forum, along with the Contest\'s Name, any provisions to the contrary in the default Organization Rules notwithstanding.
\n
\nThis Rule defers Forum to any Rule which restricts which Players may come to be under the Jurisdiction of a Contest, and how they may come to be. have effect.
\n'),(37772,1446,496359,496360,'There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Contests. Each single Organization within this class is a Contest. The SLC associated with a Contest are that Contest\'s Regulations. A Contest\'s Administrator is that Contest\'s Contestmaster. A Contest\'s Contestants are those Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC, other than the Contestmaster.
\n
\nAny Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe ACO to create a Contest must be Posted to the Public Forum to have effect.
\n
\nEach Contest has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37773,1446,496360,496361,'ThereEach Contest is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Contests. Each single an Organization within this class is a Contest. The SLC associated with a Contest are that Contest\'s an SLC called its Regulations. A Contest\'s Administrator The Adminstrator for each Contest is that Contest\'s Contestmaster. A Contest\'s Contestants are those Contestmaster, and the Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s its SLC, other than the Contestmaster. Contestmaster, are its Contestants.
\n
\nAny Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe ACO to create a Contest must be Posted to the Public Forum to have effect.
\n
\nEach Contest has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37774,1446,496361,496362,' The Adminstrator Administrator for each Contest is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster, are its Contestants.
\n
\nAny Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe ACO to create a Contest must be Posted to the Public Forum to have effect.
\n
\nEach Contest has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37775,1446,496362,404680,'Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster, are its Contestants.
\n
\nAny Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.
\n
\n be Posted to the Public Forum published to have effect.
\n
\nEach Contest has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37776,1446,404680,405279,'Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster, are its Contestants.
\n
\nAny Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe ACO to create a Contest must be published to have effect.
\n
\nEach Contest has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37777,1446,405279,496354,'Each Contest is anLet there be a Class of Organization associated with an SLC called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within the Jurisdiction known as a Contest, also known as a subgame of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster, are its Contestants. Agora Nomic.
\n
\nAny Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of any Contest, unless that would conflict with thatA Contest\'s Compact is known as its Regulations, or its Administrator is known as the Rules. A Contest must have exactly Contestmaster, it has one Foundor, who becomes Treasury known as the Contest Fund, and its Executor is the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.
\n
\nThe ACO to createPlayers, other than the Contestmaster, within the Regulation\'s Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is always within the Regulations\' Jurisdiction.
\n
\nThe Foundor of a Contest is its initial Contestmaster. A Contest is Public, and the Notary must be published to have effect. publish the initial Contest Name and Regulations in the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after e receives them from the Contestmaster.
\n'),(37778,1446,496354,496365,'Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Contest, also known as a subgame of Agora Nomic.
\n
\nA Contest\'s Compact is known as its Regulations, its Administrator is known as the Contestmaster, it has one Treasury known as the Contest Fund, and its Executor is the Contestmaster.
\n
\nPlayers, other than the Contestmaster, within the Regulation\'s Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is always within the Regulations\' Jurisdiction.
\n
\nThe Foundor of a Contest is its initial Contestmaster. A Contest is Public, and the Notary must publish the initial Contest Name and Regulations in the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after e receives them from the Contestmaster.
\n'),(37779,1447,496366,496367,'If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNKNOWN. The Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ.
\n
\nThe Justices may make Injunctions in the same manner as Judges, provided a majority of them agree.
\n
\nThe decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made.
\n
\n for judging. judging, unless a majority of the Justices agree on some lesser forfeit, and so announce in their Judgement, in which case the lesser forfeit will apply instead.
\n'),(37780,1447,496367,496369,'IfOnce a majority Board of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have Appeals has been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNKNOWN. The Justices\' reasoning and arguments constituted upon a given question, the Justices shall be recorded with consider the original CFJ. question amongst themselves.
\n
\nThe Justices may make InjunctionsA Justice is permitted to, at any time, request that any other Player act in the same manner eir stead as Judges, provided Justice on a majority given Board of Appeals, provided that this second Player is both eligible to hold that position and consents to the assignment. A Justice who wishes to do this shall inform the Clerk of the Courts of them agree. this desire.
\n
\nThe decisionEach Justice shall convey eir determination on the matter of the Justices is final; no further Appeal to the Clerk of the Courts before seven days have elapsed from the time e became a Justice on that Statement may Board of Appeals. If e fails to do so, e commits an Infraction, to be made. reported by the Clerk of the Courts and carrying a penalty of three Blots. E also becomes ineligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, and the Clerk of the Courts shall select a new Player according to the procedures for selecting Justices.
\n
\nIfA Justice shall either sustain or overturn the decision of matter which is being considered.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the original Judge Clerk of the Statement is changed by the Justices, Courts, the Judge Clerk shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging, unless post to the Public Forum these determinations along with any arguments, evidence, or other material the Justices have included with their determination. If a majority of the Justices agree on some lesser forfeit, and so announce in their Judgement, in to sustain the matter which case is being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon Appeal shall be determined by the Rules which permit an Appeal of that sort.
\n
\nAll three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Points each upon the publication of their determinations and the outcome of the lesser forfeit will apply instead. Appeal.
\n'),(37781,1447,496369,496370,'Once a Board of Appeals has been constituted upon a given question, the Justices shall consider the question amongst themselves.
\n
\n time, request that any other appoint another Player to act in eir stead as Justice on a given Board of Appeals, provided that this second Player is both eligible to hold that position and consents to the assignment. A Justice who wishes to do does this shall inform by so informing the Clerk of the Courts of this desire. Courts.
\n
\nEach Justice shall convey eir determination on the matter of the Appeal to the Clerk of the Courts before seven days have elapsed from the time e became a Justice on that Board of Appeals. If e fails to do so, e commits an Infraction, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and carrying a penalty of three Blots. E also becomes ineligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, and the Clerk of the Courts shall select a new Player according to the procedures for selecting Justices.
\n
\nA Justice shall either sustain or overturn the matter which is being considered.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the Clerk of the Courts, the Clerk shall post to the Public Forum these determinations along with any arguments, evidence, or other material the Justices have included with their determination. If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter which is being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon Appeal shall be determined by the Rules which permit an Appeal of that sort.
\n
\nAll three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Points each upon the publication of their determinations and the outcome of the Appeal.
\n'),(37782,1447,496370,496371,'Once a Board of Appeals has been constituted upon a given question, the Justices shall consider the question amongst themselves.
\n
\nA Justice is permitted to, at any time, appoint another Player to act in eir stead as Justice on a given Board of Appeals, provided that this second Player is both eligible to hold that position and consents to the assignment. A Justice does this by so informing the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nEach Justice shall convey eir determination on the matter of the Appeal to the Clerk of the Courts before seven days have elapsed from the time e became a Justice on that Board of Appeals. If e fails to do so, e commits an Infraction, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and carrying a penalty of three Blots. E also becomes ineligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, and the Clerk of the Courts shall select a new Player according to the procedures for selecting Justices.
\n
\nA Justice shall either sustain or overturn the matter which is being considered.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the Clerk of the Courts, the Clerk shall post to the Public Forum these determinations along with any arguments, evidence, or other material the Justices have included with their determination. If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter which is being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon Appeal shall be determined by the Rules which permit an Appeal of that sort.
\n
\n 3 Points Mils each upon the publication of their determinations and the outcome of the Appeal.
\n'),(37783,1447,496371,496372,' been constituted upon selected to decide a given question, particular appeal, the Justices shall shall, collectively, consider the question amongst themselves. question.
\n
\nAEach Justice is permitted to, at any time, appoint another Player to act in eir stead as has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a given Board of Appeals, provided that this second Player is both eligible particular Board, in which to hold reach a determination that position and consents to either sustains or overturns the assignment. A Justice does this matter being considered by so informing the Clerk of that Board and submit it to the Courts. CotC.
\n
\nEach Justice shall convey eir determination on the matter of the Appeal to the Clerk of the Courts before seven days have elapsed from the time e became a Justice on that Board of Appeals. If e failsFailure to do so, e commits so is an Infraction, to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts and carrying CotC, bearing a penalty of three Blots. E also becomes ineligible to serve on 3 Blots, which results in that Board of Appeals, and the Clerk of the Courts shall select Justice\'s dismissal as a new Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player according to the procedures for selecting Justices. replace eim.
\n
\nA JusticeAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall either sustain or overturn post these determinations in the matter which is being considered. Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the Clerk of the Courts, the Clerk shall post to the Public Forum these determinations along with any arguments, evidence, or other material the Justices have included with their determination. IfIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter which is being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon Appeal shall be appeal are determined by the Rules which permit an Appeal of that sort. permitting such appeals.
\n
\n their determinations and the outcome of the Appeal. determinations.
\n'),(37784,1447,496372,496373,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\nFailure to do so is an Infraction, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace eim.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\n 3 Mils Mil each upon the publication of their determinations.
\n'),(37785,1447,496373,496374,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\n is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an Infraction, Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace eim.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\nAll three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mil each upon the publication of their determinations.
\n'),(37786,1447,496374,496375,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\nFailure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace eim.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\n of 3 Mil 1 VT each upon the publication of their determinations.
\n'),(37787,1447,496375,496376,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\n replace eim. em.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\nAll three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT each upon the publication of their determinations.
\n'),(37788,1447,496376,496377,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\nFailure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\nAll three JusticesEach Justice who submits eir determination to the CotC before the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT each upon the publication of their determinations.
\n'),(37789,1447,496377,496378,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\nFailure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\n VT each upon the publication of their determinations. eir determination.
\n'),(37790,1447,496378,496379,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\n the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge an Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, Cotc, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\n of 1 VT 20 Stems upon the publication of eir determination.
\n'),(37791,1447,496379,496380,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\nFailure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\nEachIf a Justice who submits eir determination to the CotC Clerk of the Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall receive a pay out to that Justice the Judicial Salary of 20 Stems upon as soon as possible after the publication of eir determination.
\n'),(37792,1447,496380,496381,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\n the Cotc, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal Cotc. A Justice who does not submit eir determination to the CotC within seven days is immediately recused as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\nIf a Justice submits eir determination to the Clerk of the Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to that Justice the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir determination.
\n'),(37793,1447,496381,404570,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\nFailure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc. A Justice who does not submit eir determination to the CotC within seven days is immediately recused as a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\n shall post publish these determinations in the Public Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\nIf a Justice submits eir determination to the Clerk of the Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to that Justice the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir determination.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37794,1447,404570,404956,'Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.
\n
\nEach Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that Board and submit it to the CotC.
\n
\nFailure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to JudgeFor an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc. A Justice who does not submit eir determination to the CotC within seven days is immediately recused as Appelate Judge, a Justice from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.
\n
\nAfter all three Justices have submitted their determinations to the CotC, the CotC shall publish these determinations along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those determinations.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it Judgement is overturned. The specific results exactly one of overturning a matter upon appeal are determined by the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules permitting such appeals.
\n
\nIf a Justice submits eir determination to the Clerk of the Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then may modify this, based on the Clerk subject of the Courts shall pay out to that Justice the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir determination. Appeal.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37795,1447,404956,405612,' an Appelate Appellate Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules may modify this, based on the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37796,1447,405612,405718,' an Appellate Judge, Appelate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE, REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Other Rules may modify this, this based on the subject of the Appeal. Appeal.
\n
\nIf a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been delivered.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is overturned. The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appelate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.
\n
\nWhen a Judgement is overturned:
\n
\na) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the Judgement being that which a majority of the Appelate Judges agree on.
\n
\nb) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then the original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was originally assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.
\n
\nc) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REMAND, then the original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make the same Judgement for the same reason.
\n
\nd) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be reassigned as described above.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce that this has happened.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37797,1447,405718,405765,' an Appelate Appellate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE, REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Other Rules may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\nIf a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been delivered.
\n
\n overturned. The The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appelate Appellate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.
\n
\nWhen a Judgement is overturned:
\n
\n the Appelate Appellate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the Judgement being that which a majority of the Appelate Appellate Judges agree on.
\n
\n the Appelate Appellate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then the original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was originally assigned. The The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.
\n
\n the Appelate Appellate Judges Judge REMAND, then the original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make the same Judgement for the same reason.
\n
\nd) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be reassigned as described above.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce that this has happened.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37798,1447,405765,406006,'For an Appellate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE, REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\nIf a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been delivered.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is overturned. The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.
\n
\nWhen a Judgement is overturned:
\n
\na) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the Judgement being that which a majority of the Appellate Judges agree on.
\n
\n Judge REASSIGN, REMAND, then the original Judgement is shall be ignored, the original Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to a new Judge in the same fashion original Judge as if it was were being originally assigned. The new Judge cannot may not make the same Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.
\n
\nc) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REMAND, then Otherwise, the original Judgement shall be is ignored, the original Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original a new Judge in the same fashion as if it were being was originally assigned. The new Judge may not cannot make the same Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.
\n
\nd) If noneA Board of the above Appeals is true, then the CFJ shall be reassigned as described above.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after all members of not considered to have returned a Board Judgement until all of Appeals its members have submitted eir Judgement, Judgements. As soon as possible after this happened, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce that this has happened. the Board\'s decision.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37799,1447,406006,496368,'For an Appellate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE, REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters,If a Judgement is exactly one majority of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules may modify this based on Justices\' Judgements agree, the subject of Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNKNOWN. The Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the Appeal. original CFJ.
\n
\nIf a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider the truth or falsity ofThe Justices may make Injunctions in the original CFJ; they shall only consider whether same manner as Judges, provided a Judgement majority of DISMISSED should have been delivered. them agree.
\n
\nIf a majorityThe decision of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it Justices is overturned. The Board final; no further Appeal of Appeals shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination. that Statement may be made.
\n
\nWhen a JudgementIf the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is overturned: changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging, unless a majority of the Justices agree on some lesser forfeit, and so announce in their Judgement, in which case the lesser forfeit will apply instead.
\n
\na) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the Judgement being that which a majority of the Appellate Judges agree on.
\n
\nb) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REMAND, then the original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make the same Judgement for the same reason.
\n
\nc) Otherwise, the original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJThis Rule defers to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was originally assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.
\n
\nA Board of Appeals is not considered to have returned a Judgement until all of its members have submitted eir Judgements. As soon as possible after other Rules which do not contain this happened, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce the Board\'s decision.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) sentence.
\n'),(37800,1447,496368,496388,'If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNKNOWN. The Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ.
\n
\nThe Justices may make Injunctions in the same manner as Judges, provided a majority of them agree.
\n
\nThe decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made.
\n
\nIf the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging, unless a majority of the Justices agree on some lesser forfeit, and so announce in their Judgement, in which case the lesser forfeit will apply instead.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37801,1448,496389,496390,' shall lose 10 points, gain 3 blots, and the CotC shall as soon as possible select another eligible player at random to serve as Justice in place of the defaulting Justice. The CotC is responsible for reporting this point Blot change to the Scorekeepor. Tabulator.
\n'),(37802,1449,496391,496394,'Let there beThere is an Officer Office called to the Office of Assessor. The Assessor has a weekly salary of 5 Points. 8 points.
\n'),(37803,1449,496394,496395,' 8 points. Mils.
\n'),(37804,1449,496395,496396,'There is an Office called shall exist the Office of Assessor. The The Assessor has shall receive a weekly salary of 8 Mils. equal to 3 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(37805,1449,496396,496398,' to 3 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(37806,1449,496398,496399,' to 1.5 0.5 times the Basic Officer Salary. Salary.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall also receive a Commission. At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor shall pay out to emself an amount equal to 5% of the VTs spent on voting on that Proposal.
\n'),(37807,1449,496399,496400,' a weekly salary equal to 0.5 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall also receive a Commission. At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor shall pay out to emself an amount equal to 5% of the VTs spent on voting on that Proposal.
\n'),(37808,1449,496400,496401,'ThereThe Assessor
\n
\nThere shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor shall receive a salary equal to 0.5 times as set in the Basic Officer Salary. last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall also receive a Commission. At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor shall pay out to emself an amount equal to 5% of the VTs spent on voting on that Proposal.
\n'),(37809,1449,496401,496402,'The Assessor
\n
\nThere shall existThere exists the Office of Assessor. The Assessor shall receive a salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall also Assessor, whose responsibility it is to receive a Commission. At the end of and announce the Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor shall pay out to emself an amount equal to 5% results of the VTs spent on voting Votes on that Proposal. Proposals.
\n'),(37810,1449,496402,404483,''),(37811,1449,404483,404806,'There(a) There exists the Office of Assessor, whose responsibility it is to receive and announce the results of Votes on Proposals. Proposals.
\n
\n(b) The Assessor shall include the Voting Power of each entity on Ordinary and Democratic Proposals in eir Weekly Report. E may exclude entities whose Voting Power is zero on both Ordinary and Democratic Proposal from the Report.
\n'),(37812,1449,404806,496404,'(a) There exists the OfficeThe Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Assessor, whose responsibility it Voting Entitlements and is to receive responsible for receiving and announce announcing the results of Votes votes on Proposals. proposals.
\n
\n(b) The AssessorThe Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include the Voting Power a list of each entity the identity, voting power on Ordinary ordinary proposals, and Democratic Proposals in eir Weekly Report. E may exclude entities whose Voting Power is zero voting power on both Ordinary and Democratic Proposal from the Report. democratic proposals for each entity with nonzero voting power on either ordinary or democratic proposals.
\n'),(37813,1449,496404,404831,'The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.
\n
\nThe Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the identity, voting power on ordinary proposals, and voting power on democratic proposals for each entity with nonzero voting power on either ordinary or democratic proposals.
\n
\n(c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1 between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.
\n'),(37814,1449,404831,404916,'The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.
\n
\n the identity, voting power on ordinary proposals, identity and voting power on democratic proposals for Proposals in each entity Chamber, for all entities with nonzero voting power on either ordinary or democratic proposals. in at least one Chamber.
\n
\n(c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1 between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.
\n'),(37815,1449,404916,405162,' is recordkeepor of Voting Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.
\n
\n shall include a list of the identity and voting power for Proposals in each Chamber, for all entities with nonzero voting power in at least one Chamber. include
\n
\n(c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist* a list of the identity and voting power for Proposals in each Chamber, for all entities with nonzero voting power in at least one Chamber.
\n
\n* the Voting Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple Potentials of 0.1 between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive. every Player.
\n
\n* the prevailing mode of voting on Proposals.
\n'),(37816,1449,405162,405575,'The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.
\n
\n Assessor\'s Weekly Report weekly report shall include
\n
\n* a list of the identity and voting power limit for Proposals proposals in each Chamber, chamber for all entities each entity with nonzero voting power in at least one Chamber.
\n
\n* the Voting Potentials of every Player.
\n
\n* the prevailing mode of voting on Proposals. chamber.
\n'),(37817,1449,405575,496393,'The Assessor isLet there be an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and announcing the results Officer called to Assessor. The Assessor has a weekly salary of votes on proposals. 5 Points.
\n
\nThe Assessor\'s weekly report shall include a list of the identity and voting limit for proposals in each chamber for each entity with nonzero voting power in at least one chamber.This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37818,1449,496393,496397,'Let there be an Officer called toThere shall exist the Office of Assessor. The The Assessor has shall receive a weekly salary of 5 Points.
\n
\nThis Rule defers equal to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. 3 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(37819,1449,496397,496409,'There shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor shall receive a weekly salary equal to 3 times the Basic Officer Salary.
\n'),(37820,1450,496410,496411,'If at any time theThe Speaker is also CotC or Justiciar, e shall transfer such Office to another willing player within one week, if possible.
\n
\nAt the end never hold either of any full Nomic week during which the Speaker holds the Office of either CotC Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar, such the Office becomes vacant, and will be filled of Justiciar in the usual manner. normal fashion. If the Clerk of the Courts or the Justiciar becomes Speaker, e is immediately retired from whichever of those Offices e holds.
\n'),(37821,1450,496411,496412,'TheIf at any time the Speaker shall never hold be the Electee to either of the Office of Clerk of the Courts CotC or the Office of Justiciar in the normal fashion. If the Clerk of the Courts or the Justiciar becomes Speaker, Justiciar, e is immediately shall be retired from whichever of those Offices e holds. is Electee to.
\n'),(37822,1450,496412,404533,''),(37823,1450,404533,405315,' to either any of the Office of ADoP, the Office of CotC CotC, or the Office of Justiciar, e shall be retired from whichever of those Offices e is Electee to.
\n'),(37824,1450,405315,496413,''),(37825,1450,496413,405324,'If at any timeWhenever the Speaker shall be the is Electee to any of the Office of ADoP, the Office Clerk of CotC, or the Courts, e is retired from that Office.
\n
\nWhenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Justiciar, e shall be is retired from whichever that Office.
\n
\nWhenever a Player is both Clerk of those Offices the Courts and Justiciar, e is Electee to. removed from the Office of Justiciar.
\n
\nNeither the Speaker, the Justiciar, nor a nominee for Justiciar may be nominated for Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nNeither the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, nor a nominee for Clerk of the Courts may be nominated for Justiciar.
\n'),(37826,1450,405324,496415,'Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Clerk of the Courts, e is retired from that Office.
\n
\nWhenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Justiciar, e is retired from that Office.
\n
\nWhenever a Player is both Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar, e is removed from the Office of Justiciar.
\n
\nNeither the Speaker, the Justiciar, nor a nominee for Justiciar may be nominated for Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nNeither theThe Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, nor a nominee for Clerk and Promotor are mutually exclusive offices. A Player holding one of the Courts these offices may be nominated for Justiciar. not come to simultaneously hold another of them, unless there are no other Players in the game eligible. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule that governs offices.
\n'),(37827,1450,496415,405835,'The Speaker, Clerk following sets of the Courts, and Promotor positions are mutually exclusive offices. A Player exclusive:
\n
\na) Promotor and Assessor b) Speaker and Clerk of the Courts
\n
\nA player holding two or more positions within one of these offices may not come to simultaneously hold another sets is removed from all but one of them, unless there are no other Players in them. If one of them is the Speakership, then e retains it; otherwise, e retains the game eligible. This Rule position e came to hold most recently.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any other Rule that governs all rules governing offices.
\n'),(37828,1450,405835,432236,'The following sets of positions are mutually exclusive:
\n
\na) Promotor and Assessor b) Speaker and Clerk of the Courts
\n
\nA playerAny change in officeholdings that would result in a single entity holding two or more positions within one of these sets is removed from all but one of them. If one the offices of them promotor and assessor simultaneously is the Speakership, then e retains it; otherwise, e retains the position e came to hold most recently.
\n
\nThis INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all other rules governing regarding offices.
\n'),(37829,1450,432236,496741,' of promotor Promotor and assessor Assessor simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all other rules regarding offices.
\n'),(37830,1450,496741,497269,'AnyLest the entire proposal process fall under the control of a single entity, any change in officeholdings that would result in a single the same entity holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all other canceled and does not occur, rules regarding offices. to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(37831,1450,497269,405735,'Lest the entire proposal process fall under the controlThe Speaker, Clerk of a single entity, any change that would result in the same entity Courts, and Promotor are mutually exclusive offices. A Player holding the offices one of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is canceled and does these offices may not occur, rules come to simultaneously hold another of them, unless there are no other Players in the contrary notwithstanding. game eligible. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule that governs offices.
\n'),(37832,1451,496419,496420,' disown their eir own proposal if it has not yet been distributed or if no more than four days have passed since its distribution, by sending a statement disowning it to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThe player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five points, reported by the Assessor, but any other score changes, blots, or other effects resulting from the player\'s submission of that proposal, including but not limited to formatting penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards or penalties for votes cast on that proposal are cancelled and shall not be taken into account. The disowning Player does not receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it passes.
\n
\nNeither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would otherwise seek to reward or penalize any player based on the disowned proposal.
\n'),(37833,1451,496420,496421,'A player may disown eir own proposal if it Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed distributed, or if no more less than four days have passed since its distribution, by sending distribution. Only the Proposer of a statement disowning it given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Public Forum. Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\nThe player so disowningWhen a proposal loses a flat fee of Proposal is disowned, five points, Points are transferred from that Player to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor, but any Assessor. All other score changes, blots, transfers of Currencies or other effects resulting from Blot Changes occuring as a result of the player\'s submission of of, or voting upon, that proposal, including but Proposal do not limited to formatting penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards or penalties for votes cast take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that proposal are cancelled and shall not be taken into account. The disowning Player does not receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it passes. Proposal.
\n
\nNeither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed.
\n
\nThisThis Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would otherwise seek to reward transfer Currencies or penalize any player based on cause Blot Changes as a result of the disowned proposal. submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n'),(37834,1451,496421,496422,'A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\n from that Player its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result of the submission of, or voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n'),(37835,1451,496422,496423,'A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\n five Points Mils are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n'),(37836,1451,496423,496424,'A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\n five Mils Mil are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n'),(37837,1451,496424,496425,'A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\n disowned, five Mil 1 VT are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n'),(37838,1451,496425,496427,'A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\n disowned, 1 VT one P-Note are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule, however, does not mandate the refund of any Petition fees already paid to the Bank.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37839,1451,496427,496428,'A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\nWhen a Proposal is disowned, one P-Note are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule, however, does not mandate the refund of any Petition fees already paid to the Bank.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37840,1451,496428,496429,' distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to can only be disowned by its Proposer, and then only if its Proposer is currently neither the Assessor or nor has been the Assessor at any time after the distribution of that Proposal\'s distribution. Proposal.
\n
\nWhenThe Assessor shall bill the disowning Player a Proposal is disowned, fee of one P-Note are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. P-Note. All other transfers of Currencies payments or Blot Changes occuring as a result awards of Currency which would result from the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal. Proposal. This Rule, however, neither requires nor permits any Payment Orders already executed as a result of this Proposal to be vacated.
\n
\n to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes the payment or award of Currencies as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule, however, does not mandate the refund of any Petition fees already paid to the Bank. Disowned Proposal.
\n'),(37841,1451,496429,496426,' distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal can only which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned by its Proposer, and then only if its Proposer is neither currently the Assessor nor or has been the Assessor at any time after the distribution of that Proposal. Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\nThe Assessor shall bill the disowning PlayerWhen a fee of one P-Note. Proposal is disowned, 1 VT are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other payments or awards transfers of Currency which would Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result from of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal. This Rule, however, neither requires nor permits any Payment Orders already executed as a result of this Proposal to be vacated. Proposal.
\n
\n to cause the payment or award of transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Disowned Proposal. Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37842,1451,496426,496430,'A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time after that Proposal\'s distribution.
\n
\nWhen a Proposal is disowned, 1 VT are transferred from its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37843,1452,496431,496432,'The Rulekeepor is given the authority to define a new Rule Category in the following specific situation: If the Category is not specified in a Proposal to Create a Rule, AND in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation none of the existing Rule Categories is appropriate, then the Rulekeepor may unilaterally define and create a new Category and assign the new Rule to this Category.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor must announce the creation of the new Category to the Public Forum no later than the publication of the first Rule Set which uses the new Category. The announcement may be in the same message as the Rule Set itself.
\n
\nAn empty Rule Category may be removed by the Rulekeepor as e sees fit.
\n'),(37844,1454,496434,496435,'There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.
\n
\nThe selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range , where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as above, unless five such Virus Numbers (which are not the numbers of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in that week.
\n
\n shall announce that no Rule has been infected.
\n
\nAn infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the sentence "This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.", then that sentence is appended to the Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the sentence is deleted from the Rule.
\n
\nThere is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.
\n'),(37845,1454,496435,496436,'There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.
\n
\n Numbers (which are not (none of which is the numbers number of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in that week.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e shall announce that no Rule has been infected.
\n
\nAn infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the sentence "This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.", then that sentence is appended to the Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the sentence is deleted from the Rule.
\n
\nThere is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.
\n'),(37846,1454,496436,496437,'There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.
\n
\nThe selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range , where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as above, unless five such Virus Numbers (none of which is the number of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in that week.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e shall announce that no Rule has been infected.
\n
\nAn infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the sentence "This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.", then that sentence is appended to the Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the sentence is deleted from the Rule.
\n
\nThere is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.
\n
\nAll Rule Changes by the Virus shall be Unattributed.
\n'),(37847,1454,496437,496438,'There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.
\n
\nThe selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range , where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as above, unless five such Virus Numbers (none of which is the number of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in that week.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e shall announce that no Rule has been infected.
\n
\nAn infected Rule is amended in the following way, givenGiven that other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the sentence "This it, an infected Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.", then that sentence is appended amended by appending to it the Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the sentence following paragraph: "This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from the Rule. this Rule."
\n
\nThere is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.
\n
\nAll Rule Changes by the Virus shall be Unattributed.
\n'),(37848,1454,496438,496439,'There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the conditions set out below. This process is known as "infection". The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.
\n
\nThe selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range , where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as above, unless five such Virus Numbers (none of which is the number of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in that week.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e shall announce that no Rule has been infected.
\n
\nGiven that other Rules permit it, an infected Rule is amended by appending to it the following paragraph: "This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule."
\n
\nThere is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.
\n
\nAll Rule Changes by the Virus shall be Unattributed.
\n'),(37849,1455,496440,496442,'A Contract isLet there be a Nomic Entity which has the legal force to require one or more Players to perform any action, or face penalties for Breach class of Organization known as a Contract, whose Compact can also be referred to as a Contract.
\n
\nOnlyA Contract consists only of Warranties, which are known as its Terms, the Players may be parties within its Jurisdiction are known as the Parties to a Contract. the Contract, and the Administrator for all Contracts is the Notary.
\n
\nA Contract must specify the identities of all Players who are parties of the Contract. A Contract may also specify any or all of the following:Contracts do not possess Treasuries, nor do they possess Executors.
\n
\n* How the Contract may be changed; if this is not specified, the Contract may not be changed after it has been enacted. * How the Contract may be dissolved; if this is not specified, the Contract may only be dissolved as specified inContracts have the Rules. * How additional parties may be joined legal force to the Contract after it has been enacted; if this is not specified, additional parties may impose penalties upon Parties that do not be added to the Contract after it has been enacted. * How a party to the Contract may be released from abide by the Contract; if this is not specified, no party Terms of the Contract may be released from the Contract while the Contract continues to exist. * What actions the parties Contract. Parties that are unwilling or unable to abide by the contract Terms are required said to perform, or are prohibited from performing, and under what conditions these requirements or prohibitions have force. * What penalties are imposed upon a party who breaches be in Breach of the Contract.
\n
\nA new Contract is entered into only when may specify the Notary has received identical copies of the Contract from every party named in the Contract. The Notary shall send a notification to all parties of a contract as soon as possible after it has been legally entered into. The Contract shall be in force no sooner than the moment of that notification. following:
\n
\nA Contract ceases to have force at the moment it is dissolved in accordance with its own terms, or one or more ofi) What actions the parties of the Contract ceases to the contract are required to be a Player, perform, or are prohibited from performing, and under what conditions these requirements or prohibitions have force. ii) What penalties are imposed upon a party who Breaches the Contract is breached as described elsewhere. Contract.
\n
\nWhenever a Contract is changed in any way (including the addition of new parties to, or release of existing parties from), some partyThe Foundors of the a Contract must notify the Notary of the change as soon as possible after it occurs. In be the case set of a party being added all Parties to Contract, the change only has effect if that new party sends the notification Contract. In addition to the Notary. The Notary shall forward this notification of change what other Rules require them to provide to all parties (including new parties and former parties, if appropriate) of the Contract as soon as possible thereafter. Notary, the Foundors must also specify the following information:
\n
\nNo Contract mayi) The identity of each Party to the Contract, each of whom must be interpreted named in such the Terms of the Contract itself.
\n
\nProviding a unique Name for the Contract is optional, this takes precedence over the general requirements for information provided. If no Name is provided, the Notary must provide a way unique Name for the Contract and provide this Name to all Parties. Parties can then change the Name as provided for in the Contract or in other Rules.
\n
\nA Contract is Private, and the Notary shall send a notification to all the Parties of a Contract As Soon As Possible after it has been legally entered into. The Contract shall be in force no sooner than the moment of that notification.
\n
\nA Contract ceases to have any legal force on a Player who at the moment it is not a party dissolved in accordance with its Terms, or one or more of the Parties of the contract, Contract ceases to be a Player, or such that it requires the Contract is breached as described elsewhere.
\n
\nWhen a Player Contract is changed (including any change in the Parties) a current Party to be joined the Contract must inform the Notary of the change as soon as possible after it occurs. If a Party of is being added to, or removed from, the Contract, the change only has effect if _that_ Party sends the Contract. No term notification. The Notary shall forward this notification of a change to all current Parties of the Contract may have retroactive effect. As Soon As Possible thereafter.
\n'),(37850,1456,496443,496444,'All parties to a Contract must abide by all terms of the Contract at all times, or suffer the penalties for breach of Contract.
\n
\nA Contract is breached if any party to the Contract fails, due to neglect, inability, or unwillingness, to perform any action required of em by the Contract, or performs, voluntarily or involuntarily, any action prohibited of em by the Contract. In the event that a party would be required to violate the Rules in any way in order to uphold a Contract, the party is required to breach the Contract.
\n
\n Contract shall immediately lose 20 Points, and gain 3 Blots. commits a Class C Crime. In addition, 30 Points shall be taken from the party in breach and distributed as evenly as possible to the other parties of the Contract, with any remainder being destroyed. If the party in breach does not have enough Points for all of these transfers to be executed in full, they shall be deferred until such time as the party in breach has sufficient Points such that all of these transfers may be executed in full.
\n
\nA Contract may specify additional penalties which are to be imposed in the event of a breach; however, such penalties shall be limited to the mandatory transfer of Points or Currencies from the party who breached the Contract to any or all of the other parties of the contract.
\n
\nThe Notary shall be responsible for reporting all Score, Currency, and Blot changes which arise as a result of this Rule. All Point Penalties herein are non-punitive.
\n
\nIn the event of a breach, the Notary shall have the authority to order those Point and Currency forfeitures and transfers which are required by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached. This authority is limited to ordering the forfeiture of Points possessed by the party in breach and the transfer of Points or Currencies from the party in breach to any or all of the other parties of the Contract, but only to the extent permitted by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached.
\n'),(37851,1456,496444,496445,'All parties to a Contract must abide by all terms of the Contract at all times, or suffer the penalties for breach of Contract.
\n
\nA Contract is breached if any party to the Contract fails, due to neglect, inability, or unwillingness, to perform any action required of em by the Contract, or performs, voluntarily or involuntarily, any action prohibited of em by the Contract. In the event that a party would be required to violate the Rules in any way in order to uphold a Contract, the party is required to breach the Contract.
\n
\nAThe following shall take place in the event that a party which breaches of a Contract commits a Class C Crime. In addition, 30 Points breaches that contract:
\n
\n* 20 Marks shall be taken immediately transferred from the party in breach and distributed breaching Player to the Bank. * The breaching Player shall gain 3 Blots. * 30 Marks shall be divided as evenly as possible and transferred from the breaching Player to each of the other parties of the Contract, with any remainder being destroyed. If the party in breach does not have enough Points for all of these transfers to be executed in full, they shall be deferred until such time as the party in breach has sufficient Points such that all of these transfers may be executed in full. Contract.
\n
\nA Contract may specify additional penalties which are to be imposed in the event of a breach; however, such penalties shall be limited to the mandatory transfer of Points or Currencies from the party who breached the Contract to any or all of the other parties of the contract.
\n
\nThe Notary shall be responsible for reporting all Score, Currency, and Blot changes which arise as a result of this Rule. All Point Penalties herein are non-punitive.
\n
\nIn the event of a breach, the Notary shall have the authority to order those Point and Currency forfeitures and transfers which are required by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached. This authority is limited to ordering the forfeiture of Points possessed by the party in breach and the transfer of Points or Currencies from the party in breach to any or all of the other parties of the Contract, but only to the extent permitted by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached.
\n'),(37852,1456,496445,496446,'All partiesA Contract is Breached if any party to a the Contract must abide by all terms fails, for any reason, to perform any action required of em by the Contract at all times, Contract, or suffer the penalties performs, for breach any reason, any action prohibited of Contract. em by the Contract. A Breach is officially determined when the Notary finds a Player in Violation of the Contract\'s Terms, as described in other Rules.
\n
\nA Contract is breached if any party to the Contract fails, due to neglect, inability, or unwillingness, to perform any action required of em byIf a Party cannot fulfill the Contract, or performs, voluntarily or involuntarily, any action prohibited Terms of em by the Contract. In the event that a party Contract because to do so would be conflict with the Rules, e is required to violate Breach the Rules in any way in order to uphold Contract and must suffer the penalties for a Contract, Breach. (This applies even if other Rules absolve the party is required to breach Party from obeying the Contract. Terms.)
\n
\nThe following shall take place in the event that a party of a Contract breaches that contract:
\n
\n*i) 20 Marks shall be immediately transferred from the breaching Player to the Bank. * ii) The breaching Player shall gain 3 Blots. * iii) 30 Marks shall be divided as evenly as possible and transferred from the breaching Player to each of the other parties of the Contract.
\n
\n the mandatory transfer of Points or Currencies from the party who breached the Contract to any or all of the other parties Parties of the contract. Contract.
\n
\n all Score, Currency, Currency and Blot changes which arise as a result of this Rule. All Point Penalties herein are non-punitive. Rule.
\n
\n order those Point and all specifically enumerated Currency forfeitures and transfers which are required by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached. This Breached. This authority is limited to ordering the forfeiture of Points possessed by the party in breach and the transfer of Points or Currencies from the party Party in breach to any or all of the Bank and/or to other parties Parties of the Contract, but only to the extent permitted by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached. Contract.
\n'),(37853,1457,496447,496448,'When any party to a Contract believes the Contract has been breached, that party shall inform the Notary that e believes the Contract has been breached, specifying which party e believes breached the Contract. The Notary shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this notice to all parties of the Contract. If, within seven days of this distribution, no party of the Contract disputes the claim of breach, the Notary shall declare the Contract breached, and order any and all forfeitures and transfers of Points and Currencies that may be required by the Rules or the Contract in the event of a breach.
\n
\nIf, however, any party disputes the claim of breach within seven days, then any party of the Contract in dispute may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific party of the Contract has breached the Contract. No Player who is not a party of the Contract in question may make such a Call for Judgement, nor may such a Call for Judgement be made in any other circumstance. All Players who are parties to the Contract are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\n which made called the Call for Judgement CFJ shall lose 5 Points, which Marks; this transfer shall be detected and reported by the Notary.
\n'),(37854,1457,496448,496449,' any party to Player within the Jurisdiction of a Contract Compact believes the Contract has Compact to have been breached, that party Violated by another Player, e shall inform the Notary Administrator of that e believes the Contract has been breached, specifying which party e believes breached the Contract. The Notary shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this notice to all parties Compact\'s Organization of that belief, along with the Contract. If, within seven days of this distribution, no party nature of the Contract disputes Violation, the claim Violated text of breach, the Notary shall declare the Contract breached, and order any and all forfeitures Compact, and transfers of Points and Currencies that may be required by the Rules or identity of the Contract in Violating Player. The Administrator shall then, As Soon As Possible, distribute this information to all Players within the event Jurisdiction of a breach. the Violated Compact.
\n
\nIf, however, any party disputes the claim of breach within seven days, then any party days of this distribution, no Player within the Contract in dispute may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific party of Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the Contract has breached claim, the Contract. No Player who is not a party of Administrator shall declare the Contract in question may make such a Call for Judgement, nor may such a Call for Judgement be made in any other circumstance. All Players who are parties Compact Violated. The Administrator is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Contract are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ. Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact.
\n
\nInIf, however, any Player under the Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of Violation within seven days, then any Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated the Compact. Such a Call for Judgement cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nIn the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Contract is breached, Compact has been Violated and the Notary Compact\'s Administrator shall perform the same duties as when no party Player contests the claim. In the event that such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player which called the CFJ shall lose 5 Marks; Marks to the Bank; this transfer shall be detected and reported by the Notary. Administrator of the Compact\'s Organization, if the Organization does not possess a Treasury, by its Executor otherwise.
\n'),(37855,1457,496449,496450,'When any Player within the Jurisdiction of a Compact believes the Compact to have been Violated by another Player, e shall inform the Administrator of that Compact\'s Organization of that belief, along with the nature of the Violation, the Violated text of the Compact, and the identity of the Violating Player. The Administrator shall then, As Soon As Possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the Violated Compact.
\n
\nIf, within seven days of this distribution, no Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Administrator shall declare the Compact Violated. The Administrator is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact.
\n
\nIf, however, any Player under the Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of Violation within seven days, then any Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated the Compact. Such a Call for Judgement cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\n lose 5 Marks 1 Mil to the Bank; this transfer shall be detected and reported by the Administrator of the Compact\'s Organization, if the Organization does not possess a Treasury, by its Executor otherwise.
\n'),(37856,1457,496450,496452,' Player within the Jurisdiction of a Compact believes the Compact to have that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been Violated violated by another Player, a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Administrator Maintainer of that Compact\'s Organization SLC of that belief, along with the nature of the Violation, violation, the Violated violated text of the Compact, SLC, and the identity of the Violating violating Player. The Administrator Maintainer shall then, As Soon As Possible, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the Violated Compact. violated SLC.
\n
\n within seven days 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the Compact\'s SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Administrator Maintainer shall declare the Compact Violated. SLC violated. The Administrator Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact. the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, however, any Player under the Compact\'s SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of Violation violation within seven days, 72 hours, then any Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated violated the Compact. Such a Call for Judgement CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\n the Compact\'s SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nIn the event thatWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Compact SLC has been Violated violated and the Compact\'s Administrator SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. In If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the event that appeal.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player which who called the CFJ shall lose is guilty of an Infraction whose penalty is 1 Mil to the Bank; this Mil. This Infraction transfer shall be detected and reported by the Administrator Clerk of the Compact\'s Organization, if the Organization does not possess Courts. If such a Treasury, FALSE Judgement is overturned upon appeal, this Mil shall be refunded to eim, this transfer to be detected and reported by its Executor otherwise. the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(37857,1457,496452,496453,'When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and the violated SLC.
\n
\n the Compact. SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player who called the CFJ is guilty of an Infraction whose penalty is 1 Mil. This Infraction transfer shall be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If such a FALSE Judgement is overturned upon appeal, this Mil shall be refunded to eim, this transfer to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(37858,1457,496453,496454,'When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.
\n
\n of an the Infraction of False Claim of SLC Violation whose penalty is 1 Mil. This Infraction transfer shall be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If such a FALSE Judgement is overturned upon appeal, this Mil shall be refunded to eim, this transfer to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(37859,1457,496454,496455,'When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.
\n
\n is 1 Mil. 0.5 VTs. This Infraction transfer shall be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If such a FALSE Judgement is overturned upon appeal, this Mil VT shall be refunded to eim, this transfer to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(37860,1457,496455,496456,'When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player who called the CFJ is guilty of the Infraction of False Claim of SLC Violation whose penalty is 0.5 VTs. This Infraction transfer shall be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If such a FALSE Judgement is overturned upon appeal, this VT shall be refunded to eim, this transfer to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(37861,1457,496456,496457,'When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf,If any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.
\n'),(37862,1457,496457,404662,'When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37863,1457,404662,405083,'When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has been violated by a PlayerOnly Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall inform the Maintainer of that a SLC of may CFJ that belief, along with the nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the a Player has violated that SLC.
\n
\nIf, within 72 hours of this distribution, no PlayerAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and the violated SLC.
\n
\nIf any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction SLC are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nWhenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC that a Player has been violated and the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal. that SLC.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) substantial
\n'),(37864,1457,405083,496451,'Only PlayersWhen any Player within the Jurisdiction of a SLC may CFJ Compact believes the Compact to have been Violated by another Player, e shall inform the Administrator of that a Player has violated Compact\'s Organization of that SLC. belief, along with the nature of the Violation, the Violated text of the Compact, and the identity of the Violating Player. The Administrator shall then, As Soon As Possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the Violated Compact.
\n
\nAll PlayersIf, within seven days of this distribution, no Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction of a SLC are automatically ineligible disputes the claim, the Administrator shall declare the Compact Violated. The Administrator is then allowed to Judge a CFJ that a Player has violated that SLC. initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) (unattributed) substantialIf, however, any Player under the Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of Violation within seven days, then any Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated the Compact. Such a Call for Judgement cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nIn the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Compact has been Violated and the Compact\'s Administrator shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. In the event that such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player which called the CFJ shall lose 1 Mil to the Bank; this transfer shall be detected and reported by the Administrator of the Compact\'s Organization, if the Organization does not possess a Treasury, by its Executor otherwise.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37865,1457,496451,496459,'When any Player within the Jurisdiction of a Compact believes the Compact to have been Violated by another Player, e shall inform the Administrator of that Compact\'s Organization of that belief, along with the nature of the Violation, the Violated text of the Compact, and the identity of the Violating Player. The Administrator shall then, As Soon As Possible, distribute this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the Violated Compact.
\n
\nIf, within seven days of this distribution, no Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Administrator shall declare the Compact Violated. The Administrator is then allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact.
\n
\nIf, however, any Player under the Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim of Violation within seven days, then any Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated the Compact. Such a Call for Judgement cannot be made in any other circumstance.
\n
\nAll Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.
\n
\nIn the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Compact has been Violated and the Compact\'s Administrator shall perform the same duties as when no Player contests the claim. In the event that such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player which called the CFJ shall lose 1 Mil to the Bank; this transfer shall be detected and reported by the Administrator of the Compact\'s Organization, if the Organization does not possess a Treasury, by its Executor otherwise.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37866,1458,496460,496461,' for the administration maintaining a Record of Contracts Organizations and Contract Law. the Players under the Jurisdiction of their Compacts.
\n
\n maintain a record an up-to-date list of the Names of all Contracts legally entered into. E shall retain a copy Organizations, and an up-to-date list of the Players under the Jurisdiction of the Compacts of a Contract as long as it is legally in force. those Organizations.
\n
\nTheE Shall also keep track of the Administrators of each Organization, and the Executors of those Organizations with Treasuries.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s Salary shall be 3 5 Points per Nomic Week.
\n'),(37867,1458,496461,496462,'There shall exist an Officer called the Notary. The Notary shall generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their Compacts.
\n
\nThe Notary shall maintain an up-to-date list of the Names of all Organizations, and an up-to-date list of the Players under the Jurisdiction of the Compacts of those Organizations.
\n
\nE Shall also keep track of the Administrators of each Organization, and the Executors of those Organizations with Treasuries.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s Salary shall be 5 Points per Nomic Week.
\n'),(37868,1458,496462,496463,' their Compacts. SLCs.
\n
\n up-to-date list record of the Names of all Organizations, and an up-to-date list of the Players under the Jurisdiction of the Compacts of those Organizations. following;
\n
\nE Shall also keep tracki) The Name of the Administrators every Organization. ii) The Administrator of every Organization. iii) The Executor of every Organization. iv) The Maintainer of each Organization, and every Organization\'s SLC. v) The Players within the Executors Jurisdiction of those Organizations with Treasuries. every Organization\'s SLC.
\n'),(37869,1458,496463,496464,'There shallLet there exist an Officer called the Office of Notary. The Notary shall generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their SLCs.
\n
\nThe Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;
\n
\ni) The Name of every Organization. ii) The Administrator of every Organization. iii) The Executor of every Organization. iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC. v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s SLC.
\n'),(37870,1458,496464,496466,''),(37871,1458,496466,496467,'Let there exist the Office of Notary. The Notary shall generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their SLCs.
\n
\nThe Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;
\n
\ni) The Name of every Organization. ii) The Administrator of every Organization. iii) The Executor of every Organization. iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC. v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\nThe Notary shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.
\n'),(37872,1458,496467,496468,'Let there existThere exists the Office of Notary. The Notary shall generally be responsible for maintaining Notary, whose responsibility it is to maintain a Record of Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their SLCs. Jurisdictions.
\n
\nThe Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of Notary\'s Report includes the following; following information, for every Organization:
\n
\ni) The Name of every Organization. Its Name. ii) The Administrator of every Organization. Its Administrator. iii) The Executor of every Organization. Its Executor. iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s its SLC. v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\nThe Notary shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget. its SLC.
\n'),(37873,1458,496468,496469,'There existsThe Notary\'s Report shall include the Office of Notary, whose responsibility it is to maintain a Record of Organizations and their Jurisdictions. following information for each Organization:
\n
\nThe Notary\'s Report includes the following information, for every Organization:(i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.
\n
\ni) Its Name. ii) Its Administrator. iii) Its Executor. iv) The Maintainer of its SLC. v) The Players withinAlso, as soon as possible after the Jurisdiction creation or dissolution of its SLC. any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization.
\n'),(37874,1458,496469,404673,'There exists the Office of Notary, whose responsibility it is to maintain a Record of Organizations and their Jurisdictions.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s Report shall include the following information for each Organization:
\n
\n(i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37875,1458,404673,496470,'There exists the Office of Notary, whose responsibility it is to maintain a Record of Organizations and their Jurisdictions.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s Report shall include the following information for each Organization:
\n
\n(i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37876,1458,496470,404856,'There exists the Office of Notary, whose responsibility itThe Notary is an office; its holder is to maintain responsible for maintaining a Record record of Organizations organizations and their Jurisdictions. jurisdictions.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s Report shall include the following information for each Organization:
\n
\n(i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37877,1458,404856,405184,' their jurisdictions. jurisdictions, and generic information, excluding holdings, of currencies.
\n
\n following information for each Organization: information:
\n
\n(i)(A) For each organization: (i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players. Players.
\n
\n(B) For each currency, its name, mintor, recordkeepor, and Minimum Unit Quantity.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37878,1458,405184,405213,' their jurisdictions, and generic information, excluding holdings, of currencies. jurisdictions.
\n
\n Notary\'s Weekly Report shall include the following information: information for each Organization:
\n
\n(A) For each organization: (i)(i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.
\n
\n(B) ForThe Notary\'s Monthly Report shall include the SLC of each currency, its name, mintor, recordkeepor, and Minimum Unit Quantity. Organization.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37879,1458,405213,405246,'The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s Weekly Report shall include the following information for each Organization:
\n
\n(i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.
\n
\n the SLC Charter of each Organization.
\n
\nAlso, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37880,1458,405246,405259,'The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.
\n
\n Notary\'s Weekly Report weekly report shall include the following information for each Organization: organization:
\n
\n(i) its name; (ii) its Administrator; (iii) its Executor; (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.a) Its name. b) Its administrator. c) Its executor. d) The maintainer of its charter. e) A list of players within its jurisdiction.
\n
\n Notary\'s Monthly Report monthly report shall include the Charter charter of each Organization. organization.
\n
\nAlso, asAs soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of any Organization, an organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an Organization organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above information for that Organization. organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(37881,1458,405259,496465,'TheLet there exist the Office of Notary. The Notary is an office; its holder is shall generally be responsible for maintaining a record Record of organizations Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their jurisdictions. SLCs.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s weekly report Notary shall include maintain an up-to-date record of the following information for each organization: following;
\n
\na) Its name. b) Its administrator. c) Its executor. d)i) The maintainer Name of its charter. e) A list every Organization. ii) The Administrator of every Organization. iii) The Executor of players every Organization. iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC. v) The Players within its jurisdiction. the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\nThe Notary\'s monthly reportThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall include the charter of each organization.
\n
\nAs soon as possible be completely without effect. Two weeks after the creation or dissolution of an organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an organization this paragraph is created, the Notary inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall announce the above information for that organization.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed) be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37882,1458,496465,496476,'Let there exist the Office of Notary. The Notary shall generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their SLCs.
\n
\nThe Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;
\n
\ni) The Name of every Organization. ii) The Administrator of every Organization. iii) The Executor of every Organization. iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC. v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37883,1459,496477,496478,'A Player who is or has been Notary may not divulge any part of any Contract which was entered into or was in force during the time that e is or was Notary. However, the following disclosures are legal, as noted:
\n
\n Justice who believes that knowledge of judging a CFJ, where the contents Caller of the Contract CFJ is necessary for em to Judge a CFJ. party to the Contract, and the evidence provided by the Caller of the CFJ contains text purported to be part or all of the Contract.
\n
\nIf a Judge or Justice requires disclosure of a Contract to em for the purpose of Judging a CFJ, the Notary is required to provide a copy of the Contract to the Judge or Justice as soon as possible after the Judge\'s or Justice\'s request. The Judge or Justice receiving the contract is then bound by the same strictures of nondisclosure as is the Notary, and is further prohibited from attaching a copy of it to eir Judgement as evidence.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require the Notary to provide such records upon request, and which would require a Judge to include a copy of a Contract as part of the evidence justifying eir Ruling.
\n
\nIn addition, this Rule shall never be construed such that a Player may not disclose part of all of any Contract of which e is a party.
\n'),(37884,1459,496478,496479,'A Player who is or has been Notary may not divulge any part of any Contract which was entered into or was in force duringAn Organization can only be Private if the time that e is or was Notary. However, the following disclosures are legal, as noted: Rules defining its Class permit (or require) it to be Private.
\n
\n* Disclosure of part or all of a Contract, to any party of that Contract; * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to the current Notary; * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to a Judge or Justice judging a CFJ, where the Caller of the CFJIf its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an Organization is a party to the Contract, and the evidence provided by the Caller of the CFJ contains text purported to be part or all of the Contract. not Private unless its Compact claims Privacy.
\n
\nIf a Judge or Justice requires disclosure of a Contract to em for the purposeThe Compact of Judging a CFJ, the Notary is required to provide a copy of the Contract to the Judge or Justice as soon as possible after the Judge\'s or Justice\'s request. The Judge or Justice receiving the contract is then bound Private Organization are privileged, and may only be divulged by Players within the same strictures of nondisclosure as is Compact\'s Jurisdiction. (This defers to the Notary, and is further prohibited from attaching a copy of Compact where it to eir Judgement as evidence. forbids such disclosure.)
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would requireThe following are the Notary to provide such records upon request, and which would require a Judge to include a copy of a Contract as part of the evidence justifying eir Ruling. only legal exceptions:
\n
\nIn addition, this Rule shall never be construed such thati) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to a Player may not disclose within its Jurisdiction. ii) Disclosure of any part of all the Compact to the current Notary. iii) Disclosure of any Contract part of which e the Compact to a Judge or Justice judging a CFJ, where the Caller of the CFJ is a party. Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction, and the evidence provided by the Caller of the CFJ contains text purported to be part or all of the Compact.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require any Player to provide the Compact of a Private Organization upon request.
\n'),(37885,1459,496479,496480,'An Organization can only be Private if the Rules defining its Class permit (or require) it to be Private.
\n
\nIf its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an Organization is not Private unless its Compact claims Privacy.
\n
\nAny Organization which is not a Private Organization is a Public Organization.
\n
\nThe Compact of a Private Organization are privileged, and may only be divulged by Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction. (This defers to the Compact where it forbids such disclosure.)
\n
\nThe following are the only legal exceptions:
\n
\ni) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to a Player within its Jurisdiction. ii) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to the current Notary. iii) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to a Judge or Justice judging a CFJ, where the Caller of the CFJ is a Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction, and the evidence provided by the Caller of the CFJ contains text purported to be part or all of the Compact.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require any Player to provide the Compact of a Private Organization upon request.
\n'),(37886,1465,496486,496487,' of of all Champion\'s Rewards. Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn.
\n
\nIn addition, ten Extra Votes shall be created and given to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule, at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward.
\n'),(37887,1465,496487,496488,'Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from that Player. Responsibility is given to the Registrar to accurately record in eir Report the times of commencement and conclusion of of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn.
\n
\n be created and given transferred from the Bank to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule, at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward.
\n'),(37888,1465,496488,496489,'Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from that Player. Responsibility is given to the Registrar to accurately record in eir Report the times of commencement and conclusion of of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn.
\n
\n Champion\'s Reward. Reward. This transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor.
\n'),(37889,1465,496489,496490,' that Player. Responsibility is given to the Registrar to accurately record in eir Report the times of commencement and conclusion of of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn. Player.
\n
\nIn addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule, at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward. This transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37890,1465,496490,496492,'Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted to a winning Player beginning atAt the start of the first full Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that that a Player has won a game. Game, that Player shall receive a Champion\'s Reward, and ten Extra Votes are transferred from the Bank to that Player. This transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor. The Champion\'s Reward shall last for four Nomic weeks from this that time, and is then withdrawn from that Player.
\n
\nIn addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank to anyAny Player who wins has been awarded a game after the creation of this Rule, at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward. This transfer is detected and reported by Reward that has not yet been withdrawn, has the Assessor. right to cast three votes on any Proposal.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37891,1465,496492,496493,' ten Extra Votes VTs are transferred from the Bank to that Player. This transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor. The Champion\'s Reward shall last for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from that Player.
\n
\nAny Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on any Proposal.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37892,1465,496493,496494,' Champion\'s Reward, and ten VTs are transferred from the Bank to that Player. This transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor. The Reward. The Champion\'s Reward shall last for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from that Player. At the onset of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward, the Assessor shall pay out ten VTs to that Player.
\n
\nAny Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on any Proposal.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37893,1465,496494,496495,' the Assessor Registrar shall pay out ten VTs to that Player.
\n
\nAny Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on any Proposal.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37894,1465,496495,496496,' Player. At As soon as possible after the onset of legal and correct announcement that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward, a Player has won a Game, the Registrar shall pay out ten VTs Voting Tokens to that Player.
\n
\nAny Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on any Proposal.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37895,1465,496496,496497,' out ten four Voting Tokens to that Player.
\n
\nAny Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on any Proposal.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(37896,1465,496497,496491,'AtAny Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that a that Player has won a Game, that Player shall receive a Champion\'s Reward. The game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last for four Nomic weeks from that this time, and is then withdrawn from that Player. As soon as possible after the legal and correct announcement that a Player has won a Game, the Registrar shall pay out four Voting Tokens to that Player.
\n
\nAnyIn addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank to any Player who has been awarded wins a Champion\'s Reward game after the creation of this Rule, at the commencement of that has not yet been withdrawn, has Player\'s Champion\'s Reward. This transfer is detected and reported by the right to cast three votes on any Proposal. Assessor.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37897,1465,496491,496498,'Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from that Player.
\n
\nIn addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule, at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward. This transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn, including to whom they have been granted, and their times of commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(37898,1466,496499,496500,' Directive. These A Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives have has an Adoption Index of 2. If 2, or higher if something else in the Proposal requires a higher index. If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities\' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects.
\n'),(37899,1466,496500,496502,' Directive. A Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives has an Adoption Index of 2, or higher if something else in the Proposal requires a higher index. If If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities\' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects.
\n'),(37900,1466,496502,496503,' other effects. effects. The AI of a Proposal which contains such a Directive shall be at least 1.
\n'),(37901,1466,496503,496504,' other effects. The AI of a Proposal which contains such a Directive shall be at least 1. effects.
\n'),(37902,1466,496504,496501,' Directive. If A Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives has an Adoption Index of 2, or higher if something else in the Proposal requires a higher index. If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or Entities\' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other effects.
\n'),(37903,1467,496505,496506,'A Currency is a type of Nomic Entity. Only those Nomic Entities which are specifically defined by the Rules as being Currencies are Currencies.
\n
\n a Mintor. Mintor. The Mintor of a Currency is the Mint if it is not otherwise defined.
\n
\nThe minimum unit quantity (MUQ) of a Currency is the smallest amount of that Currency which may be transferred. All transfers, holdings, and calculations involving a given Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of its MUQ. The MUQ of a given Currency is 1, unless another Rule specifies a different MUQ for that Currency.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor of a Currency is the Player who is required to maintain a record of the amount of that Currency held in the various Treasuries which exist. If a Currency ceases to have a valid Recordkeepor, the Banker (or, in eir absence, the Speaker) shall fulfill that responsibility until a new Recordkeepor is selected according to the appropriate procedures. If no procedure exists to select a new recordkeepor, all units of the Currency are instead destroyed, and the Currency ceases to exist.
\n
\nThe Mintor of a Currency is the Nomic Entity which is authorized to create and destroy units of that Currency. If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, all units of the Currency are immediately destroyed, and the Currency also ceases to exist.
\n
\nThe Banker shall maintain a record of all existing Currencies and their MUQs, Recordkeepors, and Mintors.
\n'),(37904,1467,496506,496507,'A Currency is a type of Nomic Entity. Only those Nomic EntitiesThere are certain entities which are specifically defined Currencies. An entity is a Currency if and only if it has been made such by the Rules, and if and only if it complies with all the requirements in the Rules as being Currencies are pertaining to Currencies.
\n
\nA Currency must have a Name (which must not be the name of any other Currency), a minimum unit quantity, a Recordkeepor, and a Mintor. The Mintor of a Currency is the Mint if it is not otherwise defined.
\n
\nThe minimum unit quantity (MUQ) of a Currency is the smallest amount of that Currency which may be transferred. All transfers, holdings, and calculations involving a given Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of its MUQ. The MUQ of a given Currency is 1, unless another Rule specifies a different MUQ for that Currency.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor of a Currency is the Player who is required to maintain a record of the amount of that Currency held in the various Treasuries which exist. If a Currency ceases to have a valid Recordkeepor, the Banker (or, in eir absence, the Speaker) shall fulfill that responsibility until a new Recordkeepor is selected according to the appropriate procedures. If no procedure exists to select a new recordkeepor, all units of the Currency are instead destroyed, and the Currency ceases to exist.
\n
\nThe Mintor of a Currency is the Nomic Entity which is authorized to create and destroyNeither Currencies nor units of that Currency. If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, all units of the Currency are immediately destroyed, and the Currency also ceases to exist.
\n
\nThe Banker shall maintain a record of all existing Currencies and their MUQs, Recordkeepors, and Mintors. be created or destroyed except as specified by the Rules.
\n'),(37905,1467,496507,496509,''),(37906,1467,496509,496510,'There are certain entities which are Currencies. An entityA Currency is a class of Nomic Entities. Each Currency if and only if it has been made such by the Rules, and if shall have a Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ). All transfers and only if it complies with all the requirements in the Rules pertaining holdings of each Currency shall be rounded off to Currencies. the nearest multiple of its MUQ.
\n
\nNeither Currencies nor unitsUnless otherwise specified, the MUQ of each Currency shall be created or destroyed except as specified by the Rules. is 1.
\n'),(37907,1467,496510,496511,'A Currency is a classThere may exist Currencies, which are classes of Nomic Entities. Each entities. Each Currency shall have a Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ). Quantity, abbreviated MUQ, which shall be 1 unless otherwise specified. All transfers and holdings of each Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of its MUQ.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, the MUQ of each Currency is 1. MUQ.
\n'),(37908,1467,496511,496512,'There may exist Currencies, which are classesA Currency is a category of entities. entities established by the Rules. Each instance of a Currency shall have is a Property. Instances of a given Currency are fungible. The size of a single instance, or "unit", of a given Currency is its Minimum Unit Quantity, abbreviated MUQ, which shall Quantity (MUQ). Individual units of a Currency cannot be 1 unless otherwise specified. All transfers and holdings divided; therefore, the final result of all computations involving numbers of units of each Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest integral multiple of its MUQ. MUQ.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, the MUQ of a Currency is one (1).
\n
\nSince units of Currency are fungible, it is not necessary for the Recordkeepor of a Currency to track the individual ownership of each unit; rather, it is sufficient to maintain a record of the total number of units possessed by each entity which possesses any number of units of that Currency.
\n'),(37909,1467,496512,404606,'A Currency is a category of entities established by the Rules. Each instance of a Currency is a Property. Instances of a given Currency are fungible. The size of a single instance, or "unit", of a given Currency is its Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ). Individual units of a Currency cannot be divided; therefore, the final result of all computations involving numbers of units of Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest integral multiple of its MUQ.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, the MUQ of a Currency is one (1).
\n
\nSince units of Currency are fungible, it is not necessary for the Recordkeepor of a Currency to track the individual ownership of each unit; rather, it is sufficient to maintain a record of the total number of units possessed by each entity which possesses any number of units of that Currency.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37910,1467,404606,496508,'A Currency is a category ofThere are certain entities established by the Rules. Each instance of a Currency is a Property. Instances of a given Currency which are fungible. The size of a single instance, or "unit", of a given Currency Currencies. An entity is its Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ). Individual units of a Currency cannot be divided; therefore, if and only if it has been made such by the final result of Rules, and if and only if it complies with all computations involving numbers of units of Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest integral multiple of its MUQ. requirements in the Rules pertaining to Currencies.
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified, the MUQNeither Currencies nor units of a Currency is one (1). shall be created or destroyed except as specified by the Rules.
\n
\nSince units of Currency are fungible, itThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is not necessary for the Recordkeepor of a Currency to track the individual ownership of each unit; rather, it is sufficient to maintain a record of the total number of units possessed by each entity which possesses any number of units of that Currency.
\n
\n(unattributed) inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37911,1467,496508,496513,'There are certain entities which are Currencies. An entity is a Currency if and only if it has been made such by the Rules, and if and only if it complies with all the requirements in the Rules pertaining to Currencies.
\n
\nNeither Currencies nor units of Currency shall be created or destroyed except as specified by the Rules.
\n
\nThis Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.
\n'),(37912,1468,496514,496515,' Currencies. Currencies may exist only within a Treasury. A Treasury may is permitted to contain a positive, negative, or zero any quantity of a given Currency, Currencies in any combination, unless otherwise prohibited restricted by the Rules. Currencies may be transferred between Treasuries only as specified in the Rules. some other Rule.
\n
\nOnly those Nomic Entities which are authorized by the Rules to possess Treasuries may possess Treasuries. No Treasury may be possessed by more than one Nomic Entity. The possessionEvery unit of Treasuries may never every Currency always resides in some Treasury. Units of Currency shall only be changed, once created. placed into, removed from, or transferred between, Treasuries as permitted by the Rules.
\n
\nEach Player and each Group has a TreasuryThe possession of its own. Treasuries is limited to those entities authorized by the Rules to possess them. No entity shall possess more than one Treasury; no Treasury shall be possessed by more than one entity. Treasuries shall not be transferred.
\n
\nWhenever an Entity possesses only one Treasury, itIt shall always be a permissible and unambiguous abbreviation to state that the Entity an entity in possession of a Treasury possesses the Currencies within its that Treasury.
\n'),(37913,1468,496515,496516,'A Treasury is a repository for holding Currencies. A Treasury is permitted to contain any quantity of Currencies in any combination, unless otherwise restricted by some other Rule.
\n
\nEvery unit of every Currency always resides in some Treasury. Units of Currency shall only be placed into, removed from, or transferred between, Treasuries as permitted by the Rules.
\n
\nThe possession of Treasuries is limited to those entities authorized by the Rules to possess them. No entity shall possess more than one Treasury; no Treasury shall be possessed by more than one entity. Treasuries shall not be transferred.
\n
\nIt shall always be a permissible and unambiguous abbreviation to state that an entity in possession of a Treasury possesses the Currencies within that Treasury.
\n'),(37914,1469,496517,496518,'Whenever an Entity which is permitted to possess a Treasury is created, or an existing Entity is granted the permission to possess a Treasury, a Treasury is created for that Entity. Such a new Treasury shall initially contain no Currencies, unless otherwise specified in the Rules.
\n
\n respective Currencies. Currencies, and the Treasury itself is destroyed.
\n
\nThe Banker shall report the creation or destruction of a Treasury to the Public Forum as soon as possible after such creation or destruction takes place, unless this creation or destruction is the immediate and direct consequence of an action which is also required to be reported in the Public Forum, in which case that notification is sufficient, and no further notification is required of the Banker.
\n
\nA legal notification of the destruction of a Treasury is also, by implication, a report of the transfer of all Currencies within that Treasury to their Mintors as required by this Rule.
\n'),(37915,1469,496518,496519,'Whenever an Entity which is permitted to possess a Treasury is created, or an existing Entity is granted the permission to possess a Treasury, a Treasury is created for that Entity. Such a new TreasuryTreasuries shall initially contain no Currencies, unless otherwise specified in only be created or destroyed when required by the Rules.
\n
\nWhenever an Entity which possessesWhen a Treasury ceases to exist or ceases to be permitted to possess a Treasury, all Currencies within are immediately transferred to the Treasuries of the Mintors of the respective Currencies, and the Treasury itself is destroyed. created, it contains no units of any Currency.
\n
\nThe Banker shall report the creation or destruction ofWhen a Treasury is destroyed, all units of Currency within it are transferred to the Public Forum as soon as possible after such creation or destruction takes place, unless this creation or destruction is Treasuries of the immediate and direct consequence Mintors of an action which is also required the respective Currencies, to be reported in the Public Forum, in which case that notification is sufficient, and no further notification is required of extent permitted by the Banker. Rules. Any untransferrable Currencies are instead destroyed.
\n
\nA legal notificationThe Recordkeepors of the destruction of a Treasury is also, by implication, a each individual Currency are required to detect and report transfers of the transfer of all Currencies within that Treasury to their Mintors Currency which occur as required by a result of this Rule.
\n'),(37916,1469,496519,496520,'Treasuries shall only be created or destroyed when required by the Rules.
\n
\nWhen a Treasury is created, it contains no units of any Currency.
\n
\n destroyed, all sufficient units of each Currency within it are transferred to between that Treasury and the Treasuries of the Mintors of the respective Currencies, in either direction, so as to make the Treasury contain zero of each Currency, to the extent permitted by the Rules. Any untransferrable Any untransferable Currencies in the Treasury are instead destroyed.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepors of each individual Currency are required to detect and report transfers of that Currency which occur as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(37917,1469,496520,496521,'Treasuries shall only be created or destroyed when required by the Rules.
\n
\nWhen a Treasury is created, it contains no units of any Currency.
\n
\nWhen a Treasury is destroyed, sufficient units of each Currency are transferred between that Treasury and the Treasuries of the Mintors of the respective Currencies, in either direction, so as to make the Treasury contain zero of each Currency, to the extent permitted by the Rules. Any untransferable Currencies in the Treasury are instead destroyed.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepors of each individual Currency are required to detect and report transfers of that Currency which occur as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(37918,1470,496522,496523,'There shall exist a Nomic Entity called the Mint. The Mint shall have a Treasury known as the Bank.
\n
\nThe Mint may never transfer Currencies from its Treasury, or create or destroy any of the Currencies of which it is the Mintor, except as specifically authorized to do so in the Rules. The Mint shall not have an Executor.
\n
\nThe Mint has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37919,1470,496523,496524,' the Mint. The Mint shall have a Treasury known as the Bank.
\n
\nThe Mint may never transfer Currencies from its Treasury, or create or destroy any of the Currencies of which it is the Mintor, except as specifically authorized to do so in the Rules. The Mint shall not have an Executor.
\n
\nThe Mint The Bank has Mint Authority.
\n'),(37920,1470,496524,496525,' a Nomic Entity called set of Entities known collectively as the Bank. The This set consists of one Entity for each Bank Currency defined by the rules, which is the Mintor of that Currency. Each of the Entities in the Bank has Mint Authority. Authority.
\n
\nA Transfer Order (or Payment Order) of Bank Currency to (or from) the Bank shall be interpreted unambiguously to be a Transfer (Payment) Order to (from) the Mintor of that Currency. Transfer Orders or Payment orders to or from the Bank in non-Bank Currencies are invalid.
\n
\nEach of these Entities may only own Currency of its associated type. A Transfer order or Payment Order involving the Mintor of a Bank Currency, which is not in that Currency is invalid.
\n'),(37921,1470,496525,496526,' exist a set of Entities an entity known collectively as the Bank. This set consists The Executor of the Bank shall be the Treasuror. Each Recordkeepor of one Entity for each Bank Currency defined by shall be a Limited Executor of the rules, which is Bank, with the Mintor authority to execute transfers of units of that Currency. Each Currency, from and on behalf of the Entities in the Bank. The Bank has Mint Authority. Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of every Bank Currency.
\n
\nA Transfer Order (or Payment Order) of Bank Currency to (or from) theThe Bank shall be interpreted unambiguously to be a Transfer (Payment) Order to (from) the Mintor of that Currency. Transfer Orders or Payment orders not transfer Currencies except when specifically authorized to or from do so by the Bank in non-Bank Currencies are invalid. Rules.
\n
\nEach of these Entities may only own CurrencyWhenever the Bank incurs a debt to any other entity, the Bank shall, as soon as possible and by its Executor or by one of its associated type. A Transfer order Limited Executors, either satisfy that debt by transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or Payment Order involving dispute the Mintor of debt by whatever means are appropriate in the situation.
\n
\nThe authority to compromise or forgive a debt of the Bank Currency, which is not rests only in that Currency is invalid. the Treasuror. This power may only be exercised only: (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.
\n'),(37922,1470,496526,404621,'There shall exist(a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Executor of the Bank shall be the Treasuror. Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency shall be a Limited Executor of the Bank, with the authority to execute transfers of units of that Currency, from and on behalf of the Bank. The Bank has Mint Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of every each Bank Currency.
\n
\nThe(b) The Executor of the Bank is the Treasuror. Each Recordkeepor of each Bank shall not transfer Currencies except when specifically authorized to do so by Currency is a Limited Executor of the Rules. Bank.
\n
\nWhenever(c) The Executor of the Bank incurs a debt Bank, and each Limited Executor, is authorized to any other entity, transfer Property from the Bank shall, as soon as possible and by its Executor when the Rules explicitly require or by one permit it. Transfers of its Limited Executors, either satisfy that debt by transferring appropriate Properties to Property from the creditor, Bank which are made without being explicitly required or dispute the debt permitted by whatever means are appropriate in the situation. Rules are unauthorized.
\n
\nThe authority to compromise or forgive(d) Whenever the Bank incurs a debt of to any other entity, the Bank rests only shall, as soon as possible and by its Executor or by one of its Limited Executors, either satisfy that debt by transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the Treasuror. situation.
\n
\n(e) The Treasuror has sole authority to forgive debts owed to the Bank, in whole or in part. This power may only be exercised only: exercised: (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.
\n'),(37923,1470,404621,404744,' Authority. The The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency. Currency. The Bank is permitted to transfer Property in its possession to other entities.
\n
\n The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank is the Treasuror. Bank. Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of the Bank, and is empowered to make transfers of that Currency from the Bank.
\n
\n(c) The Executor Each Recordkeepor of the Bank, and each Limited Executor, Bank Currency is authorized to transfer Property from the Prime Executor of the Bank as and when with respect to debts denominated in that Currency. The Treasuror is the Rules explicitly require or permit it. Transfers Prime Executor of Property from the Bank which are made without being explicitly required or permitted by with respect to all other actions that the Rules are unauthorized. Bank is required to perform.
\n
\n(d) Whenever As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any other entity, the Bank shall, as soon as possible and by its Executor or by one of its Limited Executors, shall either satisfy that debt by transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the situation.
\n
\n The Treasuror has sole authority Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to the Bank, it, in whole or in part. This power may only be exercised: part: (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.
\n'),(37924,1470,404744,496529,' Bank. The The Bank has Mint Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency. The Bank is permitted to may transfer Property in its possession to other entities. entities only to satisfy its debts.
\n
\n Bank. Each Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of the Bank, and is empowered to make transfers of that Currency from the Bank.
\n
\n(c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is required to perform.
\n
\n(d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the situation.
\n
\n(e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole or in part: (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.
\n'),(37925,1470,496529,404973,''),(37926,1470,404973,404981,''),(37927,1470,404981,496530,'(a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency. The Bank may transfer Property in its possession to other entities only to satisfy its debts.
\n
\n(b) The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank. Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of the Bank, and is empowered to make transfers of that Currency from the Bank.
\n
\n(c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is required to perform.
\n
\n(d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the situation.
\n
\n(e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole or in part: (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.
\n'),(37928,1471,496531,496532,'The Mintor of a Currency may, at any time, create new units of that Currency, so long as this creation is permitted by the Rules. These newly-created units of Currency are placed in the Treasury of the Mintor. Units of Currency may not otherwise be created except as specifically authorized by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Mintor of a Currency may, at any time, destroy those units of that Currency which it currently possesses in its Treasury, so long as this destruction is permitted by the Rules. Units of Currency may not be otherwise destroyed except as specifically authorized by the Rules.
\n
\n and that Currency ceases to exist.
\n
\nThe Mintor of the Currency shall notify the Recordkeepor of the Currency as soon as possible after it creates or destroys Units of Currency.
\n
\nA Mintor must have a Treasury.
\n'),(37929,1471,496532,496533,'The MintorNew units of a Currency may, at any time, create new units are created when the Mintor of that Currency, so long as this creation is permitted by Currency transmits to the Rules. These newly-created units Recordkeepor of that Currency are placed in the Treasury a notice that e is creating new units of that Currency, specifying the Mintor. Units number of Currency may not otherwise be units that e is creating. The newly created except as specifically authorized by units are added to the Rules. Mintor\'s possessions.
\n
\nThe MintorUnits of a Currency may, at are destroyed when any time, destroy those units of that Currency entity which it currently possesses in its Treasury, so long as this destruction is permitted by the Rules. Units units of that Currency may not be otherwise destroyed except as specifically authorized by the Rules.
\n
\nIf transmits to the Mintor Recordkeepor of a that Currency ceases to exist, or ceases to have the authority to be a Mintor, then all notice that e is destroying units of that Currency are immediately destroyed, and Currency, specifying the number of units that Currency ceases to exist.
\n
\nThe Mintor e is destroying. An entity cannot destroy more units of the a Currency shall notify than e possesses, however. The units destroyed are removed from the Recordkeepor possession of the Currency as soon as possible after it creates or destroys Units of Currency.
\n
\nA Mintor must have a Treasury. entity performing the destruction.
\n'),(37930,1471,496533,404612,''),(37931,1471,404612,496534,'New units of a Currency are created when the Mintor of that Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that Currency a notice that e is creating new units of that Currency, specifying the number of units that e is creating. The newly created units are added to the Mintor\'s possessions.
\n
\nUnits of Currency are destroyed when any entity which possesses units of that Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that Currency a notice that e is destroying units of that Currency, specifying the number of units that e is destroying. An entity cannot destroy more units of a Currency than e possesses, however. The units destroyed are removed from the possession of the entity performing the destruction.
\n'),(37932,1472,496535,496536,' Treasury may, is permitted to, at any time, transfer any or all of the units of Currency within that Treasury to any other Treasury, so long as this transfer is permitted by the Rules. Such a transfer is known as a "voluntary" transfer. Voluntary
\n
\nTransfers which are indirectly required by the Rules--that is, required only because they are required by a non-Rule entity which is required by the Rules to be obeyed (including, but not necessarily limited to Group Ordinances and Contest Regulations)--are also "voluntary" transfers.
\n
\nVoluntary transfers are restricted to positive quantities, and in no case may more of a given Currency be transferred from a Treasury than that Treasury possessed prior to the transfer. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which attempts to transfer more than that amount in a voluntary transfer.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified as soon as possible by the owner of the Treasury from which a voluntary transfer is made. If a voluntary transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, it is cancelled and does not take place.
\n
\n transfers) may shall only be made as specifically directly required by the Rules. Such transfers must be reported to the Recordkeepors of the Currencies involved as soon as possible thereafter, by a Player specified by the Rules. Involuntary transfers may are permitted to be of any amount (limited only by MUQ rounding), and may are permitted to involve amounts greater than the amount in the Treasury from which the transfer originates.
\n
\nIf an involuntary transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, or there is no Rule which requires a Player to report the involuntary transfer, the transfer is cancelled and does not take place.
\n
\nAll transfers take effect no sooner than the time the Recordkeepor of the Currency is informed of the transfer.
\n'),(37933,1472,496536,496537,'The owner of a given Treasury is permitted to, at any time,It shall be legal to transfer any or all of Currencies between Treasuries, provided this is done in accordance with the units Rules. Every transfer shall involve a positive amount of Currency within that exactly one Currency, which shall be transferred from exactly one Treasury to any into exactly one other Treasury, so long as this Treasury. Every transfer has an initiator, which is permitted by the Rules. Such a Entity which causes the transfer is known as a "voluntary" transfer. to take place.
\n
\nTransfersA transfer which are indirectly required by the Rules--that is, required only because they are is explicitly and directly required to take place by a non-Rule entity which Rule is required initiated by the Rules to be obeyed (including, but not necessarily limited to Group Ordinances that Rule, and Contest Regulations)--are also "voluntary" transfers. is called a Class I Transfer.
\n
\nVoluntary transfers are restrictedA transfer which is required to positive quantities, and in no case may more of a given Currency be transferred from a Treasury take place by an Entity (other than that Treasury possessed prior the Rules) to which the Rules have granted the power to require Currency Transfers to take place is initiated by that Entity (_not_ the transfer. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which attempts grants that power to transfer more than that amount in Entity), and is called a voluntary transfer. Class II Transfer.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified as soon as possible by the owner of the Treasury from which a voluntary transfer is made. If a voluntaryA transfer which is not reported required to take place, and which is instead the Recordkeepor within seven days, it consequence of a Player\'s action, is cancelled initiated by that Player, and does not take place. is a called a Class III Transfer.
\n
\nTransfers which are not voluntary transfers ("involuntary" transfers) shall only be made as directly required by the Rules. Such transfers must be reported toFor the Recordkeepors purpose of the Currencies involved as soon as possible thereafter, by this Rule, a Player specified by Rule, or an Entity other than the Rules. Involuntary transfers are permitted Rules to be of any amount (limited only by MUQ rounding), and are permitted to involve amounts greater than which the amount in Rules have granted the Treasury from power to require Players to perform actions, which requires a Player to initiate a transfer is _not_ requiring the transfer. Such a transfer is a Class III transfer initiated by that Player. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require a Player to initiate a transfer originates. which is prohibited by this Rule.
\n
\nIf an involuntaryA Class I transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, or permitted if there is no Rule which requires specifies a Player who is to detect and report the involuntary transfer, the transfer is cancelled and does not take place. transfer.
\n
\nAll transfers take effectA Class II transfer is not permitted if there is no sooner Rule, or Entity other than the time Rules to which the Recordkeepor Rules have granted the power to require Players to perform actions, which specifies a Player who is to detect and report the transfer.
\n
\nA Class II or Class III Transfer is not permitted if the Treasury from which the Currency is being transferred will possess a negative quantity of that Currency after the transfer has been completed.
\n
\nA Class III Transfer is not permitted unless the transfer is initiated by the Executor of the Owner of the Treasury from which the Currency is informed being transferred.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit a transfer prohibited by this Rule.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified of a transfer involving that Currency within seven days, unless another Rule specifies a different time limit for reporting a certain type of transfer. For a Class I or Class II transfer, the notification shall be made by the Player required to detect and report it. For a Class III transfer, the transfer. notification shall be made by the Player who initiated it.
\n
\nClass I and Class II transfers take place at the time they are required to take place. Class III transfers take place at the time they are reported.
\n'),(37934,1472,496537,496538,'It shall be legal to transfer Currencies between Treasuries, provided this is done in accordance with the Rules. Every transfer shall involve a positive amountUnits of exactly one Currency, which shall be transferred from exactly one Treasury into exactly one other Treasury. Every transfer has an initiator, which is the Entity which causes Currency are transferrable between Treasuries under the transfer to take place. following conditions:
\n
\nAa) The transfer which is explicitly and directly required shall be from exactly one Treasury to take place by exactly one other Treasury. b) The transfer must be of a positive amount of exactly one Currency, and that amount must be an exact integral multiple of that Currency\'s MUQ. c) Some Rule is initiated must authorize the transfer, either by that Rule, and is called requiring it directly or by granting authority to require the transfer to some other entity. d) Some Rule must specify a Class I Transfer. Player whose duty it is to report the occurence of the transfer to the Recordkeepor of the Currency involved.
\n
\nA transfer which is required to take place by an Entity (other than the Rules) to which the Rules have granted the power to require Currency Transfers to take place is initiated by that Entity (_not_ the Rule which grants that power to that Entity), and is called a Class II Transfer.
\n
\nA transfer which is not required to take place, and which is instead the consequence of a Player\'s action, is initiated by that Player, and is a called a Class III Transfer.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, a Rule, or an Entity other than the Rules to which the Rules have granted the power to require Players to perform actions, which requires a Player to initiate a transfer is _not_ requiring the transfer. Such a transfer is a Class III transfer initiated by that Player. ThisThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit or require a Player to initiate a transfer which is prohibited by this Rule.
\n
\nA Class I transfer is not permitted if there is no Rule which specifies a Player who is to detect and report the transfer.
\n
\nA Class II transfer is not permitted if there is no Rule, or Entity other than the Rules to which the Rules have granted the power to require Players to perform actions, which specifies a Player who is to detect and report the transfer.
\n
\nA Class II or Class III Transfer is not permitted if the Treasury from which the Currency is being transferred will possess a negative quantity of that Currency after the transfer has been completed.
\n
\nA Class III Transfer is not permitted unless the transfer is initiated by the Executor of the Owner of the Treasury from which the Currency is being transferred.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over defers to any Rule which would permit prohibits a transfer prohibited permitted by this Rule.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified of a transfer involving that Currency within seven days, unless another Rule specifies a different time limit for reporting a certain type of transfer. For a Class I or Class II transfer, the notification shall be made by the Player required to detect and report it. For a Class III transfer, the notification shall be made by the Player who initiated it.
\n
\nClass I and Class II transfers take place at the time they are required to take place. Class III transfers take place at the time they are reported. Rule.
\n'),(37935,1472,496538,496539,'Units of Currency are transferrable between Treasuries under the following conditions:
\n
\na) The transfer shall be from exactly one Treasury to exactly one other Treasury. b) The transfer must be of a positive amount of exactly one Currency, and that amount must be an exact integral multiple of that Currency\'s MUQ. c) Some Rule must authorize the transfer, either by requiring it directly or by granting authority to require the transfer to some other entity. d) Some Rule must specify a Player whose duty it is to report the occurence of the transfer to the Recordkeepor of the Currency involved.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit or require a transfer prohibited by this Rule, and defers to any Rule which prohibits a transfer permitted by this Rule.
\n'),(37936,1473,496540,496541,' the Banker, or, in eir absence, the Speaker. Banker. The Mintor for Marks is the Mint.
\n
\nThe Banker shall post at least once every Nomic Week an Official Report to the Public Forum detailing the number of Marks held in every Treasury, and the changes thereof since at least the last such report.
\n'),(37937,1473,496541,496542,'Marks are a Currency. The MUQ of Marks is 0.01. The Recordkeepor for Marks is the Banker. The Mintor for Marks is the Mint.
\n
\nThe Banker shall post at least once every Nomic Week an Official Banker\'s Report to the Public Forum detailing includes the number of Marks held in every each Treasury, and the changes thereof since at least the last such report. posting of the Banker\'s Report.
\n'),(37938,1474,496543,496544,'Each Group shall haveAn Organization is permitted to be the Mintor of a Currency _only_ if that Organization possesses a Treasury, _and_ if the Rules defining that Organization\'s Class specifically permit it to become the Mintor of a Currency.
\n
\nEach Rule that permits an Organization of a specific Class to be a Mintor must define a unique generic name for every type of Currency associated Currency, the with that Class of Organization.
\n
\nThe name of which any Currency associated with a specific Organization shall be formed by appending the word "Coins" to Name of the Organization followed by the unique generic name of defined by the Group. The MUQ Class of all Group Coins is 1. The that Organization.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor for each variety of Group Coin any Organization\'s Currency is the Vizier Executor of the associated Group. Organization. The Mintor for each variety MUQ of Group Coin all such Currencies is the associated Group. 1.
\n'),(37939,1475,496545,496546,' the Scorekeepor, or, in eir absence, the Speaker. Scorekeepor. The Mintor for Points is the Mint.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall post at least once every Nomic Week an Official Report to the Public Forum detailing the number of Points held in every Treasury, and the changes thereof since at least the last such report.
\n
\nAll transfers involving Points shall be reported to the Public Forum. This takes precedence over any Rule which might not require, or which might prohibit, the reporting of a transfer to the Public Forum.
\n'),(37940,1476,496547,496548,'Any transfer of Points, voluntary or involuntary, from any Treasury other than the Bank to the Treasury of any Player shall be limited to the largest amount such that the Treasury of the Player receiving the transfer will not contain more than 90% of the Points which that Player would need in order to win. Any portion of a transfer which would violate this requirement is cancelled and does not take place.
\n
\nTransfers of Points from the Bank are never restricted in this manner.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit transfers or portions of transfers forbidden by this Rule to take place.
\n'),(37941,1477,496549,496550,' the Assessor, or, in eir absence, the Speaker. Assessor. The Mintor of Extra Votes is the Mint.
\n'),(37942,1477,496550,496551,'Extra Votes are a Currency. The MUQ of Extra Votes is 1. The Recordkeepor for Extra Votes is the Assessor. The Mintor of Extra Votes is the Mint.
\n
\nAt least once each Nomic week, the Assessor shall post a Report to the Public Forum, including a list of all transfers of Extra Votes since the previous such Report, and the current ownership of all Extra Votes.
\n'),(37943,1477,496551,496552,'Extra Votes are a Currency. The MUQ of Extra Votes is 1. The Recordkeepor for Extra Votes is the Assessor. The Mintor of Extra Votes is the Mint.
\n
\nAt least once each Nomic week, the Assessor shall post aThe Assessor\'s Report to includes the Public Forum, including a list of all transfers number of Extra Votes since the previous such Report, held in each Treasury, and the current ownership changes thereof since the last posting of all Extra Votes. the Assessor\'s Report.
\n'),(37944,1478,496553,496554,'The Rules may, for any given non-Player Nomic Entity, specify a Player, or the means to designate a Player, who shall act as the Executor of that Entity. The Executor of a non-Player Nomic Entity shall have the legal authority to act on behalf of that Entity, as if e were that Entity. The Rules may also specify constraints on how the Executor of an Entity may act.
\n
\nIf a non-Player Nomic Entity has no Executor, it may not act except as specifically required of it by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Executor of a Group is that Group\'s Vizier.
\n
\nFor the sake of completeness, a Player is eir own Executor.
\n
\nWhenever a Player is acting on behalf of some Entity of which e is the Executor, e must make it clear that e is doing so. If such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e is acting as the Executor of some other Entity, it shall be presumed that e is acting on eir own behalf.
\n'),(37945,1478,496554,496555,'The Rules may, for any given non-Player Nomic Entity, specify a Player, or the means to designate a Player, who shall act as the Executor of that Entity. The Executor of an entity is a non-Player Nomic Entity shall have Player who is empowered by the legal authority Rules to act on behalf of that Entity, entity, as if e were was that Entity. The Rules may also specify constraints on how the Executor of an Entity may act. entity.
\n
\nIfExcept when the Rules stipulate otherwise, a non-Player Nomic Entity Player is eir own Executor. Any other entity has no Executor, it may not act except as specifically required of it by an Executor only when the Rules. Rules specify either a Player or a means to designate a Player to be the Executor of that entity.
\n
\nThe ExecutorWhenever a Player is acting on behalf of some entity of which e is the Executor other than emself, e must make it clear that e is doing so. If such a Group Player fails to clearly indicate that e is acting as the Executor of some other entity, it shall be presumed that Group\'s Vizier. e is acting on eir own behalf.
\n
\nFor the sake of completeness,A Nomic Entity (other than a Player person who is eir own Executor.
\n
\nWhenever not a Player is acting on behalf of some Entity of Player) which e is the has no Executor, e must make it clear that e or whose Executor is doing so. If such not a Player fails Player, may not perform any action except when required to clearly indicate that e is acting as do so by the Executor of some other Entity, it shall be presumed that e is acting on eir own behalf. Rules.
\n'),(37946,1478,496555,496556,' e was were that entity.
\n
\nExcept when the Rules stipulate otherwise, a Player is eir own Executor. Any other entity has an Executor only when the Rules specify either a Player or a means to designate a Player to be the Executor of that entity.
\n
\nWhenever a Player is acting on behalf of some entity of which e is the Executor other than emself, e must make it clear that e is doing so. If such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e is acting as the Executor of some other entity, it shall be presumed that e is acting on eir own behalf.
\n
\nA Nomic Entity (other thanOnly a person who is not a Player) which has no Executor, or whose Executor is not an entity with a Player, Player Executor may not perform any action except when required to do so by the Rules. actions.
\n'),(37947,1478,496556,404392,''),(37948,1478,404392,404731,'The(a) An Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the Rules to act on behalf of that entity, who is called the Executee. There may be more than one such Player. An Executor of an Executee may perform on behalf of the Executee all such actions as if e were that entity. the Rules permit the Executee to perform.
\n
\nExcept when the Rules stipulate otherwise,(b) A Limited Executor of an entity is a Player who is eir own Executor. Any other entity has an Executor only when empowered by the Rules specify either a Player or a means to designate perform on behalf of that entity a Player to be subset of the actions which the Rules permit the entity to perform. A Limited Executor is permitted to perform on behalf of that entity. an Executee only such actions as are explicitly permitted by the Rules.
\n
\nWhenever a(c) A Player is acting on behalf of some entity of which e is the Executor other than emself, e must make it clear that e is doing so. If such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e is acting as the Executor of some other entity, it shall be presumed that e is acting on always eir own behalf. Executor. Other entities have Executors (or Limited Executors) only as and when the Rules provide.
\n
\nOnly a person or(d) A Player acting on behalf of an entity with a other than emself must clearly indicate on whose behalf e is acting. A Player Executor who does not clearly indicate that e is acting on behalf of some entity other than emself is presumed to be acting on eir own behalf.
\n
\n(e) Only persons may perform actions. actions. Non-persons perform actions only via the agency of persons, as specified by the Rules.
\n'),(37949,1478,404731,496558,'(a) An Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the Rules to act on behalf of that entity, who is called the Executee. There may be more than one such Player. An Executor of an Executee may perform on behalf of the Executee all such actions as the Rules permit the Executee to perform.
\n
\n(b) A Limited Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the Rules to perform on behalf of that entity a subset of the actions which the Rules permit the entity to perform. A Limited Executor is permitted to perform on behalf of an Executee only such actions as are explicitly permitted by the Rules.
\n
\n(c) A Player is always eir own Executor. Other entities have Executors (or Limited Executors) only as and when the Rules provide.
\n
\n(d) A Player acting on behalf of an entity other than emself must clearly indicate on whose behalf e is acting. A Player who does not clearly indicate that e is acting on behalf of some entity other than emself is presumed to be acting on eir own behalf.
\n
\n(e) Only persons may perform actions. Non-persons perform actions only via the agency of persons, as specified by the Rules.
\n'),(37950,1479,496559,496560,' lose a number some quantity of Points Currency without specifying where these Points this Currency shall be transferred to, the Player that quantity shall be required to transfer that number of Points transferred from eir own that Player\'s Treasury to the Bank.
\n
\n receive a number some quantity of Points, Currency but does not specify where the Points Currency shall be received transferred from, that number of Points quantity shall be transferred from the Bank to that Player\'s Treasury.
\n
\n transfer of Points from the Bank to that of the Player receiving the Salary.
\n
\nAll of these transfers are involuntary in nature. Salary.
\n'),(37951,1479,496560,496561,' to lose pay out some quantity of Currency without specifying where this Currency shall be transferred to, to some entity, that quantity Player shall be transferred execute a Payment Order from that Player\'s Treasury the Bank to that entity for the Bank. amount specified.
\n
\n to receive bill an entity for some quantity of Currency but does not specify where the Currency shall be transferred from, Currency, that quantity Player shall be transferred execute a Payment Order from the Bank to that Player\'s Treasury.
\n
\nThe payment of all Salaries shall be by transfer from the Bank entity to that of the Player receiving Bank for the Salary. amount specified.
\n'),(37952,1479,496561,496562,' Rule calls for requires a Player to pay out some quantity of Currency one or more Properties to some entity, that Player shall execute a Payment Order from the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the amount specified. debt.
\n
\n Rule calls for requires a Player to bill an entity for some quantity of Currency, one or more Properties, that Player entity shall execute incur a Payment Order from that entity debt to the Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the amount specified. debt.
\n'),(37953,1479,496562,404622,''),(37954,1479,404622,496563,'Whenever(a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.
\n
\nWhenever(b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so, then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the debt.
\n
\n(c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.
\n'),(37955,1479,496563,405004,'(a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.
\n
\n(b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so, then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the debt.
\n
\n(c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.
\n
\nsuch that an Order, which requires a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, and which is valid and proper under the Rules, causes the Bank to incur one or more debts to the named entity."
\n'),(37956,1479,405004,405009,''),(37957,1479,405009,405053,' the debt. debt. The Player is relieved of this obligation if the debt is satisfied before the public notice is posted.
\n
\n(b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so, then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the debt.
\n
\n the debt. debt. The Player is relieved of this obligation if the bill is paid before the public notice is posted.
\n
\nsuch that an Order, which requires a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, and which is valid and proper under the Rules, causes the Bank to incur one or more debts to the named entity."
\n'),(37958,1479,405053,496566,'(a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt. The Player is relieved of this obligation if the debt is satisfied before the public notice is posted.
\n
\n(b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so, then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the debt.
\n
\n(c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt. The Player is relieved of this obligation if the bill is paid before the public notice is posted.
\n
\nsuch that an Order, which requires a Player to pay out one or more Properties to some entity, and which is valid and proper under the Rules, causes the Bank to incur one or more debts to the named entity."
\n'),(37959,1482,496569,496570,' different Mutability Indices, Power, the Rule with the higher Mutability Index Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. Power.
\n'),(37960,1482,496570,404407,'In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Power.
\n
\nbetween 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."
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37961,1482,404407,405846,'In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Power.
\n
\nNo 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.
\n
\nbetween 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."
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(37962,1483,496572,496573,'AnyA Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some collection of text delivered by a Player to the Promoter and designated by Promotor with the submitting Player as clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal Proposal. The collection of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.
\n
\nThe effect delivery of the adoption text of a an existing Proposal shall be limited which was Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that text to the application become another Proposal, unless there is a clear indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of those legally defined Rule Changes and Directives which are contained within a prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal and which can be clearly identified as such. is a duplicate of an existing Proposal.
\n
\nFurther, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.
\n'),(37963,1483,496573,496574,' Proposer. The message in which the Proposal is delivered may specify whether the Proposal is Disinterested. A collection of text is said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.
\n
\nThe delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a duplicate of an existing Proposal.
\n
\nFurther, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.
\n'),(37964,1483,496574,496575,' Proposer. The message in which the Proposal is delivered may specify whether the Proposal is Disinterested. A A collection of text is said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.
\n
\nThe delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a duplicate of an existing Proposal.
\n
\nFurther, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.
\n'),(37965,1483,496575,496576,' the Promotor Public Forum with the clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.
\n
\nThe delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a duplicate of an existing Proposal.
\n
\nFurther, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.
\n'),(37966,1483,496576,496577,' whenever an entity with a Proposing Entity Legislative Status of Legislator delivers some collection of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that that the text is intended to become a Proposal. The The collection of text thus delivered is becomes a new Proposal, Proposal and the Proposing Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of entity delivering that text is said to be Proposed when it becomes the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or submitting a Proposal.
\n
\n of the text of an existing identical to another Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previously previous does not cause that text to become another Proposal, create a new Proposal unless there is accompanied by a clear and explicit indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is intent was to Propose a duplicate of an existing Proposal.
\n
\nFurther, the Promotor\'s distributionThe publishing of previously undistributed Proposals never causes the Proposing of Proposal Queue never creates new Proposals.
\n'),(37967,1483,496577,496578,' created whenever an entity with when a Legislative Status of Legislator delivers some collection who is not Mute sends a body of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that the text it is intended to become a Proposal. The The collection of text becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or submitting a Proposal.
\n
\nThe delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.
\n
\nThe publishing of the Proposal Queue never creates new Proposals.
\n
\nAll Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more than 5 Blots.
\n'),(37968,1483,496578,496579,'A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute sends a body of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that it is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or submitting a Proposal.
\n
\nThe delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.
\n
\n Proposal Queue Pool never creates new Proposals.
\n
\nAll Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more than 5 Blots.
\n'),(37969,1483,496579,404464,' Mute sends publishes a body of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that it is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or submitting a Proposal.
\n
\nThe delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.
\n
\nThe publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new Proposals.
\n
\nAll Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more than 5 Blots.
\n
\n
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37970,1483,404464,405402,'A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or submitting a Proposal.
\n
\nThe delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.
\n
\nThe publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new Proposals.
\n
\nAll Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more than 5 Blots.
\n
\n
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37971,1483,405402,405567,'A Proposal proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is intended document outlining changes to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or submitting a Proposal. amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate.
\n
\nTheA legislator submits a proposal by publishing of it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the Proposal Pool never creates new Proposals. Pool.
\n
\nAll Players are Legislators. A PlayerWhile a proposal is in the Proposal Pool, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement, specifying the proposal and its new adoption index. The default adoption index of a proposal is Mute while e has more than 5 Blots. one.
\n
\nAll players are legislators.
\n
\n
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37972,1483,405567,405621,'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.
\n
\nA legislator submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nWhile a proposal is inBefore the Proposal Pool, Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement, specifying the proposal and its new adoption index. announcement. The default adoption index of a proposal is one.
\n
\nAll players are legislators.
\n
\n
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37973,1483,405621,496584,'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.
\n
\nA legislator submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nBefore the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. The default adoption index of a proposal is one.
\n
\nAll players are legislators.
\n
\n
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(37974,1484,496585,496586,'At no time may the a Player hold the Office of Clerk of the Courts while simultaneously holding either the Office of Promotor or the Office of Assessor. Any Move which would cause this to occur does not take place, and the Office (or Offices) which that Player whould have assumed instead becomes Vacant and shall then be filled according to the appropriate Rules.
\n
\n to another other Players, should such a conflict arise as a result of Vacancies.
\n'),(37975,1484,496586,496587,' Player whould would have assumed instead becomes Vacant and shall then be filled according to the appropriate Rules.
\n
\nThis Rule shall not be construed so as to prevent the Speaker from fulfilling the duties of any of these Offices in the event of a vacancy. However, the Speaker is highly encouraged to delegate eir duties for one or more of these Offices to other Players, should such a conflict arise as a result of Vacancies.
\n'),(37976,1485,496589,496590,'All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and other Rules.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:
\n
\nIf the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. If not, then the Title of the Proposal is assigned if the Proposal contained only one Rule Change; otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created by other means:
\n
\nIf the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned. Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nTo change the Title of an existing Rule:
\n
\n Directive. The The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing such a Directive must be at least as great as the Mutability Index of the Rule. The 2. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.
\n
\nTitles for old Rules with no Titles:
\n
\nIf a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for that Rule.
\n'),(37977,1485,496590,496591,'All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and other Rules.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:
\n
\n assigned. If not, then the Title of the Proposal is assigned if the Proposal contained only one Rule Change; otherwise Otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created by other means:
\n
\nIf the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned. Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nTo change the Title of an existing Rule:
\n
\nA Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing such a Directive must be at least 2. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.
\n
\nTitles for old Rules with no Titles:
\n
\nIf a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for that Rule.
\n'),(37978,1485,496591,496592,'All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and other Rules.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:
\n
\nIf the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. Otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created by other means:
\n
\nIf the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned. Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nTo change the Title of an existing Rule:
\n
\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing such a Directive must be at least 2. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.
\n
\nTitles for old Rules with no Titles:
\n
\nIf a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for that Rule.
\n'),(37979,1485,496592,496593,' text containg containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and other Rules.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:
\n
\nIf the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. Otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created by other means:
\n
\nIf the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned. Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nTo change the Title of an existing Rule:
\n
\nA Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.
\n
\nTitles for old Rules with no Titles:
\n
\nIf a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for that Rule.
\n'),(37980,1485,496593,496594,' characters. The The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are However, the Title is not part of the Rule itself and have has no effect on the meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and other Rules. Players.
\n
\nFor a new Rule created as a result of aA Rule Change Proposal:
\n
\nIf the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. Otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.
\n
\nFor Creates a new Rule created by other means:
\n
\nIf the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies may specify a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned. Otherwise, for the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor chooses a shall choose the new Rule\'s Title.
\n
\nTo change the Title of an existing Rule:
\n
\nA Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.
\n
\nTitles for old Rules with no Titles:
\n
\nIf a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for that Rule.
\n'),(37981,1485,496594,496595,'All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players.
\n
\nA Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Title.
\n
\nTo change the Title of an existing Rule:
\n
\nA Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.
\n'),(37982,1485,496595,496596,'All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players.
\n
\nA Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Title.
\n
\nToThe Rulekeepor is authorized to change the Title of an existing Rule: a Rule Without Objection.
\n'),(37983,1485,496596,496597,'All Rules haveEach Rule has a Title, which is a single line of text containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players.
\n
\nA Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Title.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is authorized to change the Title of a Rule Without Objection.
\n'),(37984,1485,496597,404591,''),(37985,1485,404591,496598,'Each Rule has a Title, which is a single line of text containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players.
\n
\nA Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Title.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is authorized to change the Title of a Rule Without Objection.
\n'),(37986,1486,496599,496600,'This Rule defines the "Procedure To Impeach An Officer". This Rule applies only to certain Offices, as defined by other Rules.
\n
\nAn Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the Impeachment of the Officer passes. Any Active Player is permitted to call such a Referendum at any time, by requesting such to the Public Forum.
\n
\n that Office, and that Office becomes Vacant. Office.
\n
\nFor this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio is 2.
\n'),(37987,1486,496600,496601,'This Rule defines the "Procedure To Impeach An Officer". This Rule applies only to certain Offices, as defined by other Rules.
\n
\nAn Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the Impeachment of the Officer passes. Any Active Player is permitted to call such a Referendum at any time, by requesting such to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThe Referendum must list both the Office and the Player holding this Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named Player is holding the named Office, then that Player is immediately removed from that Office.
\n
\nFor this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio is 2.
\n
\nThis procedure shall only apply to the Offices of Assessor and Promotor, or to any Office of which the Rules explicitly state that this procedure applies to.
\n'),(37988,1486,496601,496602,'An Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the Impeachment of the Officer passes. Any Active Player is permitted to call such a Referendum at any time, by requesting such to the Public Forum.
\n
\nThe Referendum must list both the Office and the Player holding this Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named Player is holding the named Office, then that Player is immediately removed from that Office.
\n
\nFor this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio is 2.
\n
\nThis procedure shall only apply to the Offices of Assessor and Promotor, or to any Office of which the Rules explicitly state that this procedure applies to.
\n'),(37989,1486,496602,496603,'An Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the Impeachment of the Officer passes. AnyAny Active Player is permitted to call such a Referendum to Impeach an Officer at any time, by requesting such to in the Public Forum. Forum. The Officer is Impeached when such a Referendum is passed.
\n
\n the Player holding this current Electee to that Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named Player is holding the named current Electee of that Office, then that the Player is immediately removed from that Office.
\n
\n Ratio is 2. must be greater than or equal to 2 for the Referendum to pass.
\n'),(37990,1486,496603,496604,' by publicly requesting such in the Public Forum. such. The Officer is Impeached when such a Referendum is passed.
\n
\nThe Referendum must list both the Office and the current Electee to that Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named Player is the current Electee of that Office, then the Player is immediately removed from Office.
\n
\n Referendum. Voting Entities Voters do not include the Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio must be greater than or equal to 2 for the Referendum to pass.
\n'),(37991,1486,496604,404444,''),(37992,1486,404444,496605,'Any Active Player is permitted to callAn active player (the Witch Hunter) may hold a Referendum referendum to Impeach remove an Officer at any time, by publicly requesting such. The Officer is Impeached when such a Referendum is passed. officer from office. For this referendum:
\n
\nThe Referendum must list both the Office and the current Electee to that Office by name. If upon passage(a) The set of the Referendum the named Player eligible voters is the current Electee set of that Office, then active players besides the Player is immediately removed from Office. Witch Hunter and the named officer.
\n
\nFor this Referendum the default procedure(b) The adoption index is 2.
\n
\n(c) "BURN THE WITCH" is a synonym for referenda "FOR".
\n
\n(d) "LET THE WITCH LIVE" is modified as follows: Vote Collector a synonym for "AGAINST".
\n
\n(e) "OF COURSE THE WITCH IS GUILTY, BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK" is the Player who called a synonym for "PRESENT".
\n
\nIf the Impeachment Referendum. Voters do not include referendum is adopted, it shall have the Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio must be greater than or equal to 2 for effect of removing the Referendum named player from the named office if e is electee to pass. that office.
\n'),(37993,1486,496605,496606,'An active player (the Witch Hunter) may hold a referendum to remove an officer from office. For this referendum:
\n
\n(a) The set of eligible voters is the set of active players besides the Witch Hunter and the named officer.
\n
\n(b) The adoption index is 2.
\n
\n(c) "BURN THE WITCH" is a synonym for "FOR".
\n
\n(d) "LET THE WITCH LIVE" is a synonym for "AGAINST".
\n
\n(e) "OF COURSE THE WITCH IS GUILTY, BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK" is a synonym for "PRESENT".
\n
\nIf the referendum is adopted, it shall have the effect of removing the named player from the named office if e is electee to that office.
\n'),(37994,1488,496609,496610,'Let there be an Entity known as the Nomic Potato. There is only one Potato which cannot be destroyed. The Potato can be possessed by any Agora Player who owns Extra Votes (EVs). A Player with no EVs cannot possess the Potato, and if the Player possessing the Potato ever ceases to own EVs, e also loses possession of the Potato.
\n
\nIf the Potato\'s possessor ceases to possess the Potato though ceasing to own EVs, or ceasing to be a Player, or in any other way not otherwise described by the Rules pertaining to the Nomic Potato, the possession of the Potato immediately passes to the Player who owns the greatest number of EVs.
\n
\nIf more than one Player is tied for the greatest number of EVs, the Potato is transferred to the tied Player who:
\n
\ni) Has not previously possessed the Potato; providing all other tied Players have previously possessed the Potato.
\n
\nii) Has not possessed the Potato for the longest consecutive period of time immediately prior to the Potato\'s transfer; providing all other tied Players have previously possessed the Potato.
\n
\niii) The tied Player has been randomly determined selected by the Assessor, provided neither i) or ii) apply.
\n
\nAs long as at least one Player owns EVs, the Potato is always in some Player\'s possession. The only time that the Potato is not possessed by a Player is when no Player owns EVs.
\n
\nThe Assessor keeps track of who possesses the Potato.
\n'),(37995,1490,496613,496614,'The Player possessing the Potato receives the following benefits:
\n
\ni) e receives five points from the Bank for every full Nomic week e possesses the Potato.
\n
\nii) e receives ten points from the Bank for every EV e spends while e possesses the Potato. (These points are received at the time the vote is cast, and the Potato must be possessed at that time.)
\n
\n when another Player spends five points to transfer the Potato is transferred away from eir possession.
\n
\nThe Player possessing the Potato suffers the following penalties:
\n
\ni) e loses two EVs for every full Nomic week e possesses the Potato and does not spend at least one EV while voting. (This does not apply during any Nomic Week in which no Proposals are up for vote.)
\n
\nii) e loses half the EVs in eir possession (rounded down to the next integer) if e possesses the Potato at the End of the Game.
\n
\nPoint changes as a result of this Rule are Reported to the Scorekeepor by the Assessor.
\n
\nEV changes as a result of this rule are detected by the Assessor.
\n
\nEVs lost are transferred to the Bank. EVs gained are transferred from the Bank.
\n'),(37996,1490,496614,496615,'The Player possessing the Potato receives the following benefits:
\n
\ni) e receives five points from the Bank for every full Nomic week e possesses the Potato.
\n
\n receives ten three points from the Bank for every EV e spends while e possesses the Potato. (These points are received at the time the vote is cast, and the Potato must be possessed at that time.)
\n
\niii) e receives fifteen points and 1 EV from the Bank when another Player spends five points to transfer the Potato away from eir possession.
\n
\nThe Player possessing the Potato suffers the following penalties:
\n
\ni) e loses two EVs for every full Nomic week e possesses the Potato and does not spend at least one EV while voting. (This does not apply during any Nomic Week in which no Proposals are up for vote.)
\n
\n loses half the two EVs in eir possession (rounded down to the next integer) if e possesses the Potato at the End of the Game.
\n
\nPoint changes as a result of this Rule are Reported to the Scorekeepor by the Assessor.
\n
\nEV changes as a result of this rule are detected by the Assessor.
\n
\nEVs lost are transferred to the Bank. EVs gained are transferred from the Bank.
\n'),(37997,1491,496617,496618,'Let there be a Currency known asWin Tokens are a Currency. The Recordkeepor of Win Token. Any Player may possess any number Tokens is the Tabulator; the Mintor of Win Tokens, which are created, destroyed, transferred, and otherwise manipulated only according to this and other Rules. Tokens is the Mint.
\n
\nThe Recordkeepor for Win Tokens is the Tabulator. The Tabulator is responsible for keeping track of the status of Win Tokens. E shall post to the Public Forum shall, at least once per Nomic Week, post a report of detailing the number of Win Tokens currently possessed by held in each Player, as well as a description of the changes Treasury and all transactions involving Win Tokens which have occured since the previous report. Additionally, e shall make a report as soon as possible following a Win By Tokens. last report.
\n
\nUpon creation of this Rule, all Players start with 0 Win Tokens. When a Player joins the Game, e starts with 0 Win Tokens. WheneverWhenever a Game ends (for any reason), Ends, all Win Tokens in existence are destroyed.
\n'),(37998,1491,496618,496619,'Win Tokens are a Currency. The Recordkeepor of Win Tokens is the Tabulator; the Mintor of Win Tokens is the Mint.
\n
\nThe Tabulator shall, at least once per Nomic Week, post a report detailing the number of Win Tokens held in each Treasury and all transactions involving Win Tokens which have occured since the last report.
\n
\n a Player Wins the Game Ends, by Tokens, all Win Tokens in existence are destroyed.
\n'),(37999,1492,496620,496621,' Player Wins when e is both not on Hold becomes the Winner (a Win By Tokens) when the and possesses a number of Win Tokens e possesses is at least X greater than which exceeds the number of Win Tokens possessed held by any every other Player at that time. X is time by the number of registered Players at the time the previous current Game ended. The began.
\n
\nThe Tabulator shall notify the Public Forum as soon as possible after a Player Wins by the application of this Rule.
\n
\nThe Tabulator shall include in eir Report the number of Tokens currently required to Win shall be listed by the Tabulator in eir report. application of this Rule.
\n'),(38000,1492,496621,496622,' Game began. began. No Player already holding a Noble or higher Cup may Win in this manner.
\n
\nThe Tabulator shall notify the Public Forum as soon as possible after a Player Wins by the application of this Rule.
\n
\nThe Tabulator shall include in eir Report the number of Tokens currently required to Win by the application of this Rule.
\n'),(38001,1492,496622,496623,' current Game month began. No Player already holding a Noble or higher Cup may Win in this manner.
\n
\nThe Tabulator shall notify the Public Forum as soon as possible after a Player Wins by the application of this Rule.
\n
\nThe Tabulator shall include in eir Report the number of Tokens currently required to Win by the application of this Rule.
\n'),(38002,1493,496625,496628,'During each Nomic Week, eachEach Player not on Hold may is permitted to make 0, 1, 2, or up to 3 transfers of Win Tokens, in addition to any transfers permitted by default Currency Rules. These transfers occur when a Player sends a legitimate message to the Tabulator, requesting the transfer, which the Tabulator must record. The following are the only legitimate transfers, except that Token Transactions, of the default sorts described in this Rule, per Nomic Week. A Currency Rules may permit other kinds of transfers Transfer, as well: defined elsewhere, which involves Win Tokens is not a Win Token Transaction.
\n
\n* 1The legal Win Token created and given to any Player, except the requesting Player. Transactions are:
\n
\n* 1 Token removed from The creation of one Win Token, which is then placed in the Treasury of any Player and destroyed. other than the Player making the Transaction; and
\n
\n* 1 The removal of one Win Token moved from the Treasury of any Player; this Win Token is then destroyed.
\n
\nA Player who wishes to any other Player except make a Win Token Transaction shall do so by notifying the Player making Tabulator of the transfer. This counts as two transfers. Transaction.
\n'),(38003,1493,496628,496627,'EachDuring each Nomic Week, each Player is permitted to not on Hold may make up to 0, 1, 2, or 3 Win Token Transactions, transfers of the sorts described Win Tokens, in this Rule, per Nomic Week. A addition to any transfers permitted by default Currency Transfer, as defined elsewhere, which involves Win Tokens is not Rules. These transfers occur when a Win Token Transaction. Player sends a legitimate message to the Tabulator, requesting the transfer, which the Tabulator must record. The following are the only legitimate transfers, except that the default Currency Rules may permit other kinds of transfers as well:
\n
\nThe legal Win* 1 Token Transactions are: created and given to any Player, except the requesting Player.
\n
\n* The creation of one Win Token, which is then placed in the Treasury of 1 Token removed from any Player other than the Player making the Transaction; and and destroyed.
\n
\n* The removal of one Win 1 Token moved from the Treasury of any Player; this Win Token is then destroyed.
\n
\nA Player who wishes to make a Win Token Transaction shall do so by notifying any other Player except the Tabulator of Player making the Transaction. transfer. This counts as two transfers.
\n'),(38004,1494,496629,496630,'The Registrar, in consultation with the Speaker, shall develop and maintain a Welcome Message, welcoming a new player to Agora Nomic, explaining any subscriptions required to receive the Public Forum, how to obtain a current ruleset, and any other information, advice, and gossip as the Registrar sees fit.
\n
\n such Registration. In consideration for this service, the Registrar shall receive an additional point of Salary for any week in which one or more Players register for the first time. Registration.
\n'),(38005,1494,496630,496631,'The Registrar, in consultation with the Speaker, shall develop and maintain a Welcome Message, welcoming a new player to Agora Nomic, explaining any subscriptions required to receive the Public Forum, how to obtain a current ruleset, and any other information, advice, and gossip as the Registrar sees fit.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall send a copy of the Welcome Message to any Player who Registers for the first time, within a week of such Registration.
\n'),(38006,1497,496634,496636,'No Player shall present, as correct, information which e believes to be incorrect in any of the following: -a post to the Public Forum -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement -a response to a request for information which the Player is required to provide.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n
\nA Player who violates this Rule commits a Class B Crime.
\n'),(38007,1497,496636,496637,'NoA Player shall present, who presents as correct, correct information which e believes to be incorrect in any as part of the following: -a post any message sent to the Public Forum -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement -a in response to a request for information which the that Player is required to provide. provide commits the Crime of Misrepresentation, a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other RulesA Player who presents as correct information which do not contain this sentence. e believes to be inccorect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, or Judgement commits the Crime of Perjury, a Class B Crime.
\n
\n Player who violates this Rule commits a Class B Crime. shall never be convicted of both Misrepresentation and of Perjury for the same act.
\n'),(38008,1497,496637,496638,'A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to be incorrect as part of any message sent to the Public Forum or in response to a request for information which that Player is required to provide commits the Crime of Misrepresentation, a Class C Crime.
\n
\n be inccorect incorrect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, or Judgement message to an Officer which that Officer is then required to act upon commits the Crime of Perjury, Falsification, a Class B C Crime.
\n
\n Player who presents as correct information which e believes to be incorrect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, or Judgement commits the Crime of Perjury, a Class B Crime.
\n
\nA Player shall never be convicted of both Misrepresentation and more than one of Perjury the above Crimes for the same act.
\n'),(38009,1497,496638,496639,' the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation, a Class C Crime. Misrepresentation.
\n
\n the Class 4 Crime of Falsification, a Class C Crime. Falsification.
\n
\n the Class 10 Crime of Perjury, a Class B Crime. Perjury.
\n
\nA Player shall never be convicted of more than one of the above Crimes for the same act.
\n'),(38010,1497,496639,496640,' be incorrect as part of any message sent to the Public Forum incorrect, either publicly or in response to a request for information which that Player is required to provide provide, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.
\n
\nA Player who presents as correct information which e believes to be incorrect as part of a message to an Officer which that Officer is then required to act upon commits the Class 4 Crime of Falsification.
\n
\nA Player who presents as correct information which e believes to be incorrect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, or Judgement commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.
\n
\nA Player shall never be convicted of more than one of the above Crimes for the same act.
\n'),(38011,1497,496640,404390,'AAny Player who presents willfully makes a false statement of fact as correct information which e believes to be incorrect, either publicly part of evidence submitted in support of a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, or Judgement, or in response to a request for information which Judicial or Appellate Order requiring that Player is required to provide, disclose information known to that Player, commits the Class 4 10 Crime of Misrepresentation. Perjury.
\n
\nAAny Player who presents willfully makes a false statement of fact as correct part of a public message, as any part of a response to a request for information which e believes where that Player was required to be incorrect respond, or as part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then required to act upon act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Falsification. Misrepresentation.
\n
\nA Player who presents as correct information which e believes to be incorrect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, or Judgement commitsFor the Class 10 Crime purposes of Perjury. this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered an Officer.
\n
\nAFor the purposes of this Rule, a false statement of fact is made "willfully" when the Player making it, at the time the statement was made, has the intention to make a false statement of fact and knowledge that the statement actually made was false. Particularly, a Player who makes a false statement of fact through excusable negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable reliance on the representations of another, shall never not be convicted of more than one considered to have willfully made a false statement of fact.
\n
\nA conclusion as to the above Crimes for interpretation of the same act. Rules or their application to a particular situation is not a "statement of fact".
\n'),(38012,1497,404390,404870,'Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part of evidence submitted in support of a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, or Judgement, or in response to a Judicial or Appellate Order requiring that Player to disclose information known to that Player, commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.
\n
\nAny Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part of a public message, as any part of a response to a request for information where that Player was required to respond, or as part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then required to act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered an Officer.
\n
\n the purposes purpose of this Rule, for a false statement of fact is made "willfully" when the Player making it, at the time the statement was made, has the intention to "willfully make a false statement of fact and knowledge that fact", all of the following conditions must be true at the time the statement actually made was false. Particularly, a Player who makes a false statement of fact through excusable negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable reliance on the representations of another, shall not be considered to have willfully made a false statement of fact. statement.
\n
\nAa) The Player must present the statement as if it were true.
\n
\nb) The Player must know that the statement is false. In particular, the following things are not willful: excusable negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable reliance on the representations of another.
\n
\nc) The statement is not a conclusion as to the interpretation of the Rules Rules, or as to their application to a particular situation is not a "statement of fact". situation.
\n'),(38013,1497,404870,496635,'AnyNo Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact shall present, as part of evidence submitted correct, information which e believes to be incorrect in support any of the following: -a post to the Public Forum -evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for Judgement, COE, CFJ, or Judgement, or in Judgement -a response to a Judicial or Appellate Order requiring that Player to disclose request for information known to that Player, commits which the Class 10 Crime of Perjury. Player is required to provide.
\n
\nAny Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part of a public message, as any part of a responseThis Rule defers to a request for information where that Player was required to respond, or as part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then required to act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.
\n
\nFor the purposes of this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered an Officer.
\n
\nFor the purpose of this Rule, for a Player to "willfully make a false statement of fact", all of the following conditions must be true at the time the Player makes the statement.
\n
\na) The Player must present the statement as if it were true.
\n
\nb) The Player must know that the statement is false. In particular, the following things are not willful: excusable negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable reliance on the representations of another.
\n
\nc) The statement is other Rules which do not a conclusion as to the interpretation of the Rules, or as to their application to a particular situation. contain this sentence.
\n'),(38014,1497,496635,496643,'No Player shall present, as correct, information which e believes to be incorrect in any of the following: -a post to the Public Forum -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement -a response to a request for information which the Player is required to provide.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(38015,1498,496644,496645,'Another Way to Win
\n
\nIf, at any time, thereA Player Wins the Game if e is the only one Immaculate Player, that Player may Win the Game by announcing and e has correctly reported this fact to the Public Forum, providing provided that Player has e did not also Won Win the previous Previous Game in this same manner.
\n'),(38016,1498,496645,496646,'A Player Wins the Game if e is the only Immaculate Player, and e has correctly reported this fact to the Public Forum, provided that e did not Win the Previous Game in this same manner.
\n
\nNo Player already holding any Winner\'s Cup may Win in this manner.
\n'),(38017,1498,496646,496647,' Win the Previous Game in this same manner.
\n
\nNo Player already holding any Winner\'s Cup may Win in manner within the three months prior to this manner. announcement.
\n'),(38018,1498,496647,496648,'A Player Wins the Game if e is the only Immaculate Player, and e has correctly reported this fact to the Public Forum, provided that e did not Win in this manner within the three months prior to this announcement.
\n'),(38019,1499,496649,496650,'A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules for a Contract, except:
\n
\nIn the statement of the Bearerbond, one or more of the parties are identified only by unique abstract Role names (such as Bearer, or Party of the First Part and Party of the Second Part, or Feduciacrator, Honker, and Trusiast, or whatever), rather than being identified as a specific Player. At all times, exactly one Player is associated with each Role; the Player associated with a particular Role is known as the Rolebearer for that Role in that Bearerbond.
\n
\nAll the copies of the Bearerbond sent and received during the setting up of the Bearerbond shall be accompanied by a statement clearly identifying the initial Rolebearer for each Role in the Bearerbond. All these statements must be identical.
\n
\n Role invovled, involved, and the identity of the new Bearer. The change of Rolebearer takes effect when the Notary sends this notification.
\n
\nAll Rolebearers in a Bearerbond are in all ways parties to the Bearerbond. When the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond changes, the previous Rolebearer is no longer a party to the Bearerbond, unless e is explicitly named in the Bearerbond itself, or is the Rolebearer for some other Role in it.
\n'),(38020,1499,496650,496651,'A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules forLet there be a Contract, except:
\n
\nIn the statement of the Bearerbond, one or more of the parties are identified only by unique abstract Role names (such as Bearer, or Party Class of the First Part and Party of the Second Part, or Feduciacrator, Honker, and Trusiast, or whatever), rather than being identified as a specific Player. At all times, exactly one Player is associated with each Role; the Player associated with a particular Role is Organization known as the Rolebearer for that Role in that Bearerbond.
\n
\nAll the copies of the Bearerbond sent and received during the setting up of the Bearerbond shall be accompanied by a statement clearly identifying the initial Rolebearer for each Role in the Bearerbond. All these statements must be identical.
\n
\nTo change the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond, the current Rolebearer and the new Rolebearer notify the Notary of the transaction, clearly indicating which Role in which Bearerbond is involved (the notary may assign identifying names whose Compact can also be referred to Bearerbonds, or otherwise impose identification mechanisms as e sees fit). Unless the Bearerbond specifies otherwise, the Rolebearer for any Role may be changed Bearerbond. Organizations in this way at any time. When any Rolebearer in a Bearerbond changes, the Notary shall notify all parties to the Bearerbond of the fact of the change, the Role involved, Class are created, maintained, and otherwise behave in exactly the identity of the new Bearer. The change same manner as Organizations of Rolebearer takes effect when the Notary sends this notification.
\n
\nAll Rolebearers in a Bearerbond are in all ways parties to the Bearerbond. When Class Contracts with the Rolebearer for some Role only exceptions being those given in a Bearerbond changes, the previous Rolebearer is no longer a party to the Bearerbond, unless e is Rules explicitly named in the Bearerbond itself, or is the Rolebearer for some other Role in it. applying to Bearerbonds.
\n'),(38021,1500,496652,496654,' that an Ordinance, Regulation, a Statute or Contract a Warranty (hereinafter the Target) should be interpreted in a certain way is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction Injunction requiring the Ordinancekeepor of the relevant Group (in the case of Ordinances), the Contestmaster Administrator of the relevant Contest (in the case of Regulations) or Organization whose Compact contains the Notary (in the case of Contracts) Target to annotate the Target with the Statement in the CFJ.
\n
\nThe annotation shall remain only until the Target is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of the Target.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the Target.
\n'),(38022,1500,496654,496655,'WhenIf a CFJ alleging Call for Judgement alleges that a Statute or a Warranty (hereinafter the Target) should be interpreted in a certain way is way, and the Caller of that CFJ has included a list of Rules, Statutes, and Warranties relevant to that CFJ (which must include the Statute or Warranty in question), and that CFJ has been Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with of the Judgement CFJ is permitted to issue an Injunction requiring the Administrator of ordering the Organization whose Compact contains the Target Player responsible for maintaining that particular Statute or Warranty to annotate the Target Statute or Warranty in question with the Statement in the CFJ. CFJ and the list of relevant Rules, Statutes, and Warranties.
\n
\nTheSuch an annotation shall remain only until any of the Rules, Statutes, or Warranties in the Target list of relevant Rules, Statutes, or Warranties is changed in any way; way, or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. removed by another Injunction. While it remains, it shall guide the application of the Target. that Statute or Warranty.
\n
\n a Player believes Call for Judgement alleges that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the an annotation is therefore of a Statute or Warranty under this Rule no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to prevail, and that effect. If it is CFJ has been Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from Judge of that CFJ is required to issue an Injunction ordering the Target. Player responsible for maintaining that particular Statute or Warranty to remove said annotation.
\n'),(38023,1500,496655,496656,'IfWhen a Call for Judgement alleges player makes a CFJ alleging that a Statute or Warranty SLC should be interpreted in a certain way, and the Caller of that CFJ has included e shall also submit a list of Rules, Statutes, and Warranties Rules relevant to that CFJ (which must include CFJ. If the Statute or Warranty in question), and that CFJ has been statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge of may include with the CFJ is permitted to issue Judgement an Injunction ordering Injuction requiring the Player responsible for maintaining that particular Statute or Warranty to annotate Maintainer of the Statute or Warranty SLC in question to annotate that SLC with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules, Statutes, and Warranties. Rules.
\n
\nSuch anThe annotation shall remain only until any one of the Rules, Statutes, or Warranties Rules in the list of relevant Rules, Statutes, or Warranties the annotated SLC, is changed in any way, way; or until removed by another Injunction. a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Statute or Warranty. SLC.
\n
\n a Call for Judgement alleges Player believes that the circumstances which led to an annotation of a Statute or Warranty under this Rule the Judgement no longer prevail, prevail and that the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ has been to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the Judge of that CFJ is required to issue an Injunction ordering annotation shall be stricken from the Player responsible for maintaining that particular Statute or Warranty to remove said annotation. SLC.
\n'),(38024,1500,496656,496657,'When a player makes aA CFJ alleging that a SLC should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit way must be accompanied by a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with Rules, assembled by the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Maintainer of the SLC in question to annotate that SLC with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. Caller.
\n
\nThe annotation shall remain only until one ofIf the Rules in Judge finds this CFJ\'s Statement TRUE, e is permitted to issue an Injunction requiring the list Maintainer of relevant Rules, or the annotated SLC, is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines SLC to annotate the SLC with that Statement and the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, list of relevant Rules. This annotation, while it exists, shall guide the application of that SLC.
\n
\nIfThe annotation is removed once any change occurs in a Rule from the list of relevant Rules.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that the circumstances which led leading to the Judgement no longer prevail and prevail, rendering the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, inapplicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the SLC. is removed.
\n'),(38025,1500,496657,496658,'A CFJ alleging aThe Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that an SLC should be interpreted in a certain way must be accompanied by a list way, which is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Maintainer of relevant Rules, assembled by that SLC to annotate the SLC in question with the Caller. Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that SLC.
\n
\nIf the Judge finds this CFJ\'s Statement TRUE, e is permitted to issue an Injunction requiring theThe Maintainer of that SLC may remove such an annotation only when the SLC ceases to annotate the exist, or when required to do so by a valid Order. Annotations to an SLC with that Statement and the list of relevant Rules. This annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that SLC. may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nThe annotation is removed once any change occurs in a Rule from the list of relevant Rules.
\n
\nIfIf a Player believes that the circumstances leading to the Judgement an annotation is no longer prevail, rendering the annotation inapplicable, pertinent, e may submit a file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to that effect. Vacate the Order of Annotation. If it such a Motion is Judged TRUE, granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Maintainer of that SLC to remove the annotation is removed. in question.
\n'),(38026,1500,496658,496659,'The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that an SLC should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Maintainer of that SLC to annotate the SLC in question with the Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that SLC.
\n
\n only when if the SLC ceases to exist, or when exist; if required to do so by a valid Order. Order; or if the original Order to Annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Maintainer of an SLC may vacate an Order to annotate that SLC Without Objection. Annotations to an SLC may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Maintainer of that SLC to remove the annotation in question.
\n'),(38027,1500,496659,404562,''),(38028,1500,404562,496660,'The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that an SLC should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Maintainer of that SLC to annotate the SLC in question with the Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that SLC.
\n
\nThe Maintainer of that SLC may remove such an annotation only if the SLC ceases to exist; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the original Order to Annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Maintainer of an SLC may vacate an Order to annotate that SLC Without Objection. Annotations to an SLC may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nIf a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Maintainer of that SLC to remove the annotation in question.
\n'),(38029,1501,496661,496662,'If a Player (the "Requestor") asks the Ordinancekeepor of a Group for a copy of the Group\'s Ordinances, the Ordinancekeepor is obliged to provide it as soon as possible, without cost or other obligation on the part of the Requestor.
\n
\nIf the Ordinances change duringIf, between the time interval , where R is the time that the Requestor sends the Requestor\'s request message and P is made and the time that the Ordinancekeepor Provides fulfills the information, then request, the Ordinances have been changed, the Ordinancekeepor must provide the Ordinances as they existed at the time R. Additionally, e most provide, of the request, and must additionally, for each time at which change of the Ordinances changed during this which occurred between the time interval, of the request and the time of fulfillment, give the time of that change and the state of the Ordinances as they existed as a result of the that change.
\n'),(38030,1501,496662,496663,'If a Player (the "Requestor") asks the Ordinancekeepor of a Group for a copy of the Group\'s Ordinances, the OrdinancekeeporAn Organization is obliged to provide it as soon as possible, without cost or other obligation on the part of Public unless the Requestor. Rules defining its Class permit (or require) it to be Private.
\n
\nIf,If its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an Organization is Public unless its Compact claims Privacy.
\n
\nThe Compact of a Public Organization must be provided by the Administrator of that Organization to any Player on demand. If, between the time of the Requestor\'s request is made demand and the time the Ordinancekeepor Administrator fulfills the request, demand, the Ordinances have been Compact has changed, the Ordinancekeepor Administrator must provide the Ordinances Compact as they it existed at the time of the request, demand, and must additionally, for each additionally document every change of made to the Ordinances which occurred Compact between the time of the request demand and the time of fulfillment, give the time of that change and the state of the Ordinances as they existed as a result of that change. its fulfillment.
\n'),(38031,1501,496663,496664,'An Organization is Public unless the Rules defining its Class permit (or require) it to be Private.
\n
\nIf its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an Organization is Public unless its Compact claims Privacy.
\n
\n Player As Soon As Possible on demand. If, between the time of the demand and the time the Administrator fulfills the demand, the Compact has changed, the Administrator must provide the Compact as it existed at the time of the demand, and must additionally document every change made to the Compact between the demand and its fulfillment.
\n'),(38032,1501,496664,496665,'An Organization is Public unless the Rules defining its Class permit (or require) it to be Private.
\n
\nIf its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an Organization is Public unless its Compact claims Privacy.
\n
\nThe Compact of a Public Organization must be provided by the Administrator of that Organization to any Player As Soon As Possible on demand. If, between the time of the demand and the time the Administrator fulfills the demand, the Compact has changed, the Administrator must provide the Compact as it existed at the time of the demand, and must additionally document every change made to the Compact between the demand and its fulfillment.
\n
\nThis Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(38033,1502,496666,496667,' Players, Groups, Patent Titles, and Degrees which the Registrar is required by other Rules to record and to publish in the Registrar\'s Report. Other Rules may specify further things which must be included in the Registrar\'s Report.
\n'),(38034,1502,496667,496668,'AtThere is a set of information known as the Registrar\'s Report. It consists of all the information that the Rules say is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n
\nAt least once every Nomic Week the Registrar shall post to the Public Forum a Registrar\'s Report. The information contained in this Report shall include but shall not be limited to all the information pertaining to Players, Patent Titles, and Degrees which the Public Forum. A Registrar is required by other Rules to record and that fails to publish in the Registrar\'s Report. Other Rules may specify further things which must be included in the Registrar\'s Report. do so commits a Class C Crime.
\n'),(38035,1502,496668,496670,' Report. It consists of The Registrar shall maintain all the information that the Rules say is part of in the Registrar\'s Report. Report, and post the Report to the Public Forum at least once every Nomic Week A Registrar that fails to do so commits a Class C Crime.
\n
\nAtThe Registrar\'s Report shall at least once every contain the following:
\n
\n1. The White Pages, which consist of a list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic Week nickname, preferred email address, current On/Off Hold status, and the Registrar shall post date the Registrar\'s Report to Player last Registered or went On or Off Hold.
\n
\n2. The Blue Pages, which consist of a list of all Offices and other official positions within Agora (such as Speaker), with the Nomic nickname of the holder of each position, and (in the Public Forum. A Registrar case of Offices) when the last Election for that fails to do so commits a Class C Crime. Office was and whether the Office is held temporarily.
\n'),(38036,1502,496670,496671,'There is a set of information known as the Registrar\'s Report. The Registrar shall maintain all the information in the Registrar\'s Report, and post the Report to the Public Forum at least once every Nomic Week A Registrar that fails to do so commits a Class C Crime.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s Report shall at least contain the following:
\n
\n1. The White Pages, which consist of a list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, current On/Off Hold status, and the date the Player last Registered or went On or Off Hold.
\n
\n2. The Blue Pages, which consist of a list of all Offices and other official positions within Agora (such as Speaker), with the Nomic nickname of the holder of each position, and (in the case of Offices) when the last Election for that Office was and whether the Office is held temporarily.
\n'),(38037,1502,496671,496672,'The Registrar\'s Report shall at least contain the following:
\n
\n1. The White Pages, which consist of a A list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname, if any, preferred email address, current On/Off Hold status, and the date the Player last Registered or went On or Off Hold.
\n
\n The Blue Pages, which consist identity of a list of all Offices and other official positions within Agora (such as Speaker), with the Nomic nickname of the holder of each position, Speaker and (in the case eir Term of Service.
\n
\n3. The identity of Offices) when the last Election for that Office was and whether the Office is held temporarily. Distributor.
\n'),(38038,1502,496672,496669,'TheThere is a set of information known as the Registrar\'s Report shall at least contain Report. It consists of all the information that the following: Rules say is part of the Registrar\'s Report.
\n
\n1. A list of all Registered Players, with theirAt least once every Nomic nickname, if any, preferred email address, current On/Off Hold status, and Week the date Registrar shall post the Player last Registered or went On or Off Hold. Registrar\'s Report to the Public Forum. A Registrar that fails to do so commits a Class C Crime.
\n
\n2. The identity of the Speaker and eir Term of Service.
\n
\n3. The identity of the Distributor.This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence.
\n'),(38039,1503,496673,496674,'Whenever a Player performs an action which is designated by theThe Rules as a Crime, and further it has been determined by a CFJ that in fact that this action did take place and was in fact a Crime, then that Player shall be subject to the penalties can penalize Players for that Crime, as performing, or failing to perform, some specific action. Such penalized actions, or failures to act, are defined by the Rules. as either Crimes or Infractions.
\n
\nAn action is a CrimeA Player shall only if there is a Rule which designates it to be subject to the penalty for a Crime after a Crime. The fact CFJ has explicitly found that an action is prohibited by the Rules is not sufficient to make it a Crime. The designation of Player has committed that Crime, or after an action as a Crime does not in any way grant legal status appeal to that action. a Judgement finds so.
\n
\nA Rule which designates an action to Player shall be a Crime must also either specify an explicit subject to the penalty for committing an Infraction as soon as it is reported by the Officer in charge of detecting that Crime, Infraction.
\n
\nThere are no Crimes or designate that Crime to be one of several Classes of Crime Infractions outside those defined elsewhere in the Rules. If a Rule designates an action to be defines a Crime, but does not either specify Crime or Infraction without specifying an explicit penalty penalty, or specify a valid Class class of Crime, penalty that is defined in the Rules, then that Crime shall not or Infraction imposes no penalty.
\n
\nAny Rule that defines an Infraction must also specify the Officer in charge of detecting and reporting that Infraction, otherwise the Infraction imposes no penalty. Crimes are detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nAny penalties reported by unauthorized persons have any associated penalty. no effect.
\n'),(38040,1503,496674,496675,'The Rules can penalize Players for performing, or failing to perform, some specific action. Such penalized actions, or failures to act, are defined as either Crimes or Infractions.
\n
\nA Player shall only be subject to the penalty for a Crime after a CFJ has explicitly found that the Player has committed that Crime, or after an appeal to a Judgement finds so.
\n
\n the Officer Player in charge of detecting that Infraction.
\n
\nThere are no Crimes or Infractions outside those defined in the Rules. If a Rule defines a Crime or Infraction without specifying an explicit penalty, or a class of penalty that is defined in the Rules, then that Crime or Infraction imposes no penalty.
\n
\n the Officer Player in charge of detecting and reporting that Infraction, otherwise the Infraction imposes no penalty. Crimes are detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nAny penalties reported by unauthorized persons have no effect.
\n'),(38041,1503,496675,496676,'The Rules can penalize Players for performing, or failing to perform, some specific action. Such penalized actions, or failures to act, are defined as either Crimes or Infractions.
\n
\nA Player shall only be subject to the penalty for a Crime after a CFJ has explicitly found that the Player has committed that Crime, or after an appeal to a Judgement finds so.
\n
\nA Player shall be subject to the penalty for an Infraction as soon as it is reported by the Player in charge of detecting that Infraction.
\n
\nThere are no Crimes or Infractions outside those defined in the Rules. If a Rule defines a Crime or Infraction without specifying an explicit penalty, or a class of penalty that is defined in the Rules, then that Crime or Infraction imposes no penalty.
\n
\n specify the a Player in charge of detecting and reporting that Infraction, otherwise the Infraction imposes no penalty. Crimes or Players who are detected authorized to detect and reported by report the Clerk commission of that Infraction; otherwise, the Courts. Infraction carries no penalty.
\n
\nAny penalties reported by unauthorized persons have no effect.
\n'),(38042,1503,496676,496677,'TheAny entity who performs an action defined by the Rules can penalize Players for performing, or failing to perform, some specific action. Such penalized actions, or failures to act, are defined as either Crimes or Infractions.
\n
\nA Player shall only be subject to the penalty for a Crime after a CFJ has explicitly found that the Player has committed that Crime, or after fails to perform an appeal action where such failure is defined by the Rules to be a Judgement finds so.
\n
\nA Player Crime, shall be subject to the whatever penalty for an Infraction as soon as it is reported by the Player in charge of detecting Rules prescribe for that Infraction.
\n
\nThere are no Crimes or Infractions outside those defined in Crime upon the Rules. If a Rule defines execution of a Crime or Infraction without specifying an explicit penalty, or Sentencing Order executed consequent to a class of penalty judicial finding that is defined e did in the Rules, then fact commit that Crime or Infraction imposes no penalty.
\n
\nAny Rule that defines an Infraction must also specify a Player or Players who are authorized to detect and report the commission of that Infraction; otherwise, the Infraction carries no penalty.
\n
\nAny penalties reported by unauthorized persons have no effect. Crime.
\n'),(38043,1503,496677,404579,'Any entity who performs anAn action defined by the Rules to be or inaction is a Crime, Crime or fails to perform an action where such failure is Infraction only if defined as such by the Rules to be a Crime, shall Rules.
\n
\nAn entity may be subject to whatever penalty the Rules prescribe for that Crime upon the execution convicted of a Sentencing Order executed consequent to Crime only by a judicial finding that e did in fact commit has committed that Crime. An entity may be convicted of an Infraction only by announcement of a Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission of that Crime. Infraction.
\n
\nThe commission of a Crime or Infraction may be penalized only as defined by the Rules.
\n'),(38044,1503,404579,405724,'An action or inaction isIn general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were a Crime binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or an Infraction only if defined alleged Rule violation shall be treated as such the violation of a binding agreement to be bound by the Rules. Rule or Rules in question.
\n
\nAn entity mayThe proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima facie, be convicted of a Crime only by a judicial finding that e has committed that Crime. An entity may considered to be convicted of an Infraction only by announcement protective of a Player authorized by Player\'s rights and privileges with respect to making and changing the Rules agreement to report be bound by the commission of that Infraction. rules.
\n
\nThe commission of a Crime or InfractionOther rules may be penalized only as defined by further differentiate the treatment of rules violations from the Rules. treatment of violations of other types of agreements.
\n'),(38045,1503,405724,496681,'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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nOther rules may further differentiate the treatment of rules violations from the treatment of violations of other types of agreements.
\n'),(38046,1504,404580,405076,'The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall be by Sentencing Order(s). UponUpon a judicial finding that an entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute execute, as soon as possible, either:
\n
\na) all and only those Sentencing Orders necessary and sufficient to implement impose the penalty required by the Rules for that Crime. Crime; or
\n
\nb) (Without Objection) an Order to Apologize.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38047,1504,405076,405721,' a judicial finding in a Civil CFJ that an entity the defendant has committed a Crime, broken one or more Rules, the Trial Judge so finding shall execute, as soon must execute exactly one of the following types of sentencing orders as possible, either: punitive damages:
\n
\na) all(1) Without Objection and only those Sentencing Orders necessary and sufficient to impose with 1 Support, an order the penalty for that Crime; or defendant to make a formal apology;
\n
\nb) (Without Objection)(2) Without 2 Objections and with 2 Supporters, an Order order for the defendant to Apologize. perform a specified service for the benefit of the Agoran community proportinate to the seriousness of the breach;
\n
\n(3) An order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey for a number of months equal to the power of the highest powered Rule that was broken;
\n
\n(4) If and only if the trial judge finds the defendant to to have acted willfully in breaking the rules, an order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey for twice number of months equal to the power of the highest-powered Rule that was broken;
\n
\n(5) If and only if the judge finds the defendant to have acted egregiously, maliciously, or with a consistent pattern of abuse, with Agoran Consent, an order for the Registrar to deregister the defendant in disgrace (make em lawless). An order to be made lawless is automatically appealed upon its initial execution.
\n
\nThese punishments are considered ranked with "worse" punishments being later in the list.
\n
\nIf an attempted sentencing order does not receive the proper support or receives too many objections, the trial judge must execute another type of sentencing order.
\n
\nNo other punitive damages may be assessed for Rules violations.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'); INSERT INTO `diffs` VALUES (38048,1504,405721,405766,'Upon a finding in a Civil CFJ that the defendant has broken one or more Rules, the Trial Judge must execute exactly one of the following types of sentencing orders as punitive damages:
\n
\n(1) Without Objection and with 1 Support, an order the defendant to make a formal apology;
\n
\n community proportinate proportionate to the seriousness of the breach;
\n
\n(3) An order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey for a number of months equal to the power of the highest powered Rule that was broken;
\n
\n to to have acted willfully in breaking the rules, an order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey for twice number of months equal to the power of the highest-powered Rule that was broken;
\n
\n(5) If and only if the judge finds the defendant to have acted egregiously, maliciously, or with a consistent pattern of abuse, with Agoran Consent, an order for the Registrar to deregister the defendant in disgrace (make em lawless). An order to be made lawless is automatically appealed upon its initial execution.
\n
\nThese punishments are considered ranked with "worse" punishments being later in the list.
\n
\nIf an attempted sentencing order does not receive the proper support or receives too many objections, the trial judge must execute another type of sentencing order.
\n
\nNo other punitive damages may be assessed for Rules violations.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38049,1504,405766,406077,'UponThere is a finding in subclass of judicial case known as a Civil CFJ that criminal case. A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the defendant has broken one or more Rules, the Trial Judge must execute exactly one culpability of a particular person, known as the following types defendant, for an alleged breach of sentencing orders as punitive damages: the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached the rules.
\n
\n(1) Without Objection and with 1 Support, an orderThe initiation of a criminal 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 the defendant of the case and invite em to make a formal apology; rebut the argument for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the defendant has been so informed.
\n
\n(2) Without 2 ObjectionsThe initiator and with 2 Supporters, an order for the defendant are each unqualified to perform a specified service for the benefit be assigned as judge of the Agoran community proportionate to case. During the pre-trial phase, the seriousness defendant CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the breach; case, by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.
\n
\n(3) An order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey forA criminal case has a number of months equal to the power of judicial question on culpability, which is applicable at all times following the highest powered Rule that was broken; pre-trial phase. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n(4) If and only* ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if the trial judge finds the defendant to have acted willfully judgement has already been reached in breaking the rules, an order for the Herald to place another criminal case with the same defendant in the Chokey for twice number of months equal to the power of and substantially the highest-powered Rule that was broken; same alleged act
\n
\n(5) If and only* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the judge finds alleged act was not proscribed by the defendant to have acted egregiously, maliciously, or with a consistent pattern of abuse, with Agoran Consent, an order for rules at the Registrar to deregister the defendant in disgrace (make em lawless). An order to be made lawless is automatically appealed upon its initial execution. time it allegedly occurred
\n
\nThese punishments are considered ranked with "worse" punishments being later in* INNOCENT, appropriate if the list. defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\nIf an attempted sentencing order does not receive* SLIPPERY, appropriate if the proper support or receives too many objections, information available to the trial judge must execute another type of sentencing order. is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act
\n
\nNo other punitive damages may* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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 judgements.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be assessed manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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 Rules violations. 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38050,1504,406077,406101,'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 player, by announcement which clearly identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached the rules.
\n
\nThe initiation of a criminal 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 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.
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and substantially the same alleged act
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n active judgements. sentences.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38051,1504,406101,406153,'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 player, by announcement which clearly identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached the rules.
\n
\nThe initiation of a criminal 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 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.
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and substantially the same alleged act
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38052,1504,406153,406161,'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 player, by announcement which clearly identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached the rules.
\n
\n so informed. informed. At any time during the pre-trial phase after the defendant has been informed, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by announcement.
\n
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and substantially the same alleged act
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38053,1504,406161,406199,' clearly identifies the defendant and specifies all of the action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached the rules. following:
\n
\nThe initiationa) The identity of a criminal 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 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 after the defendant has been informed, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by announcement. defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe initiation of a criminal 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 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 after the defendant has been informed, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by announcement.
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n same defendant defendant, the same rule, and substantially the same alleged act
\n
\n the rules specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38054,1504,406199,406200,'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 player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of the following:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\n pre-trial phase after the defendant has been informed, phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by announcement.
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38055,1504,406200,406264,'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 player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of the following:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\n phase. During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In In the pre-trial phase the judge 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.
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38056,1504,406264,406376,'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 player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of the following:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as alleged serious
\n
\n if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38057,1504,406376,406448,'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 player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of the following:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe initiator and defendant are each 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks, or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38058,1504,406448,406477,' any first-class person who is a member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of the following:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n and defendant are 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks, or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38059,1504,406477,406512,'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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* EXCUSED, UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant breached reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule via
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the specified act, but has good reason why e defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks, or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38060,1504,406512,406554,'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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks, or 1 VC, of the color(s) one of eir choice. 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38061,1504,406554,432324,'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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome 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.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n past week, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38062,1504,432324,496760,'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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n is thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for while all of the first following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week after has elapsed since it first takes took effect. Thereafter, the sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and sentences
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38063,1504,496760,496850,' case CAN CAN, with 2 Support, 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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) The A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule. rule.
\n
\nd) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n act was would not proscribed by have violated the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred rule
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff. When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n SHALL within 72 hours as soon as possible 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.
\n
\n* FINE, FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When An amount is only valid if the currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either destroy one this amount of eir Notes. currency or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)(unattributed) 29 July 2008
\n'),(38064,1504,496850,496868,'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, with 2 Support, 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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nd) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have violated the specified rule
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff. When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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 as soon as possible 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once.
\n
\n* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time limit is specified).
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) 29 July 2008
\n'),(38065,1504,496868,496876,'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, with 2 Support, 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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nd) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have violated the specified rule
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff. When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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 as soon as possible 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once.
\n
\n* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time limit is specified).
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n CANNOT register. register, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) 29 July 2008
\n'),(38066,1504,496876,496927,'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, with 2 Support, 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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nd) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n the initiating announcement alleged act allegedly occurred a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have violated the specified rule
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nSome types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff. When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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 as soon as possible 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once.
\n
\n* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time limit is specified).
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) 29 July 2008
\n'),(38067,1504,496927,497329,'ThereCriminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A Any first-class person can initiate a criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability case by an surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged rules breach of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN, with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a single entity (the Accused). The initiator and each member of the Accused\'s basis of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all are unqualified to be assigned as judge of the following: case.
\n
\na) The identity ofA criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is applicable at all times following the defendant. call for judgement. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly* GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ALL of the following are true: (a) the Accused breached by the defendant. specified rule via the specified act; (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being initiated; (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal case, or punishment already applied through another uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the same rule, and substantially the same alleged act; (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule; (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the breach without committing a different breach of equal or greater severity.
\n
\nc) A specific action (which may* NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to be true beyond a failure reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir possession due to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule. notice in question, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as possible.
\n
\nd) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n* OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have violated the specified rule
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is appropriate
\n
\nAA 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 Accused is hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in effect.
\n
\nSome types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff. When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences. effect.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged Failure 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once.
\n
\n* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive service do so is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence Class-3 Crime of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time limit is specified).
\n
\n* CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up Failure 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. Apologize.
\n
\n* EXILE with SILENCE, a duration (the tariff) up number of Rests, equal to 60 days multiplied by the power defined Class of the highest-power rule allegedly broken, appropriate if the severity of Crime or (if the rule breach is reasonably correlated with not a defined crime) the length power of the tariff, breached Rule, rounded to the middle of nearest integer with ties the tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence breached Rule, are created in the possession of this type is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as required Ninny. If the Ninny showed bad faith by this rule. If contesting an exiled entity is ever a player, e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register, rules to obviously-correct notice or by obstructing the contrary notwithstanding. course of justice, the judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2 Support. Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class greater than 14.
\n
\n the defendant accused by announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n July 2008 OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008
\n'),(38068,1504,497329,497394,' Any There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. Any first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an announcement calling for judgement on the circumstances surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a rules breach by a single entity (the Accused). The initiator and each member of the Accused\'s basis are unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
\n
\nA criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The valid judgements for this question are:
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ALL of the following are true: (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified act; (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being initiated; (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal case, or punishment already applied through another uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the same rule, and substantially the same alleged act; (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule; (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the breach without committing a different breach of equal or greater severity.
\n
\n* NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir possession due to the notice in question, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as possible.
\n
\nA 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 Accused is hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in effect.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are:
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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 as soon as possible 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. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize.
\n
\n ties the breached Rule, broken by rounding up, are created in the possession of the Ninny. If The judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2 Support, and SHOULD attempt to do so if e believes the Ninny showed bad faith by contesting an obviously-correct notice or by obstructing the course of justice, the judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2 Support. Players justice.
\n
\nPlayers SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class greater than 14.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) 29 July 2008 OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008
\n'),(38069,1505,404584,405079,' N Infraction (where N is replaced with a number) is an Infraction for which the penalty is N Blots.
\n
\nA Class N Crime or Infraction, where (where N is replaced with a number, number) is a Crime or Infraction for which the penalty is N Blots. Blots and a loss of 2*N Points.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38070,1505,405079,405087,' N Blots. Blots. Such a penalty is assessed upon the execution of a Ticketing Order that Orders the Herald to record the penalty.
\n
\n 2*N Points. Points. Such a penalty is assessed upon the execution of a Sentencing Order that Orders the Herald to record the penalty, and a Notice of Award of the Points penalty.
\n
\nIf such a Sentencing or Ticketing Order is vacated after the Herald has already recorded the penalty, then an equal number of Blots are expunged from the penalized entity. (If the entity has less Blots than the amount of the penalty, then all eir Blots are expunged.) In the case of a vacated Sentencing Order, the lost Points are to be Awarded back to the penalized entity, provided that the game has not been Won between the execution of the Sentencing Order and its vacation.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38071,1505,405087,405346,'A Class N Infraction (where N is replaced with a number) is an Infraction for which the penalty is N Blots. Such a penalty is assessed upon the execution of a Ticketing Order that Orders the Herald to record the penalty.
\n
\n N Blots and a loss of 2*N Points. Blots. Such a penalty is assessed upon the execution of a Sentencing Order that Orders the Herald to record the penalty, and a Notice of Award of the Points penalty.
\n
\n are expunged.) In the case of a vacated Sentencing Order, the lost Points are to be Awarded back to the penalized entity, provided that the game has not been Won between the execution of the Sentencing Order and its vacation. expunged.)
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38072,1505,405346,405421,' N Blots. Such Blots minus the number of Shares owned by the penalized entity at the time of the Infraction, with a minimum of 1. Such a penalty is assessed upon the execution of a Ticketing Order that Orders the Herald to record the penalty.
\n
\nA Class N Crime (where N is replaced with a number) is a Crime for which the penalty is N Blots. Such a penalty is assessed upon the execution of a Sentencing Order that Orders the Herald to record the penalty.
\n
\nIf such a Sentencing or Ticketing Order is vacated after the Herald has already recorded the penalty, then an equal number of Blots are expunged from the penalized entity. (If the entity has less Blots than the amount of the penalty, then all eir Blots are expunged.)
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38073,1509,404558,405561,'Upon a judicial finding that a Player has failed to perform a duty required of em by the Rules, the Judge so finding shall execute an Order, requiring that Player to perform that duty as soon as possible. Such an Order is known as an Order to Compel.
\n
\nIf the duty in question arises because the Player in question holds a specific Office or other position of official responsibility, the Order shall be directed to that Office or position. If the Player holding that Office fails to perform the duty in question as ordered, the Judge shall Order that that Player be removed from Office or position.
\n
\nIf the duty in question arises for a reason not related to the Player in question holding a specific Office or official position, and that Player fails to perform the duty as ordered, the Judge shall amend the Order to require the Speaker to perform that duty instead.
\n'),(38074,1527,404388,405625,' one action -- such as a notification, report, or other communication -- note on which the Rules rules place some legal significance, the actions in that message notes shall be taken to have been sent sequentially in the order which they appear in the message.
\n
\nIfA tangle is any set of two or more notes in a message attempts message, none of which can be determined to perform multiple actions simultaneously without explicitly stating appear in the message before the others. If a message containing a specific tangle does not provide an order for the actions, notes in that tangle, then the attempt notes in that tangle shall be considered ambiguous and without effect if the gamestate would be substantively different for any two orderings effects of those notes on the actions. For the purposes of this test, gamestate would depend on the actual order the actions are performed in is not considered substantive, but other differences may, at which they take effect, discounting the discretion mere fact of their taking effect in a judge, be considered substantive. different order.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38075,1528,404666,404724,'There are entities known as Organizations. An entityAn Organization is only an Organization when specifically entity designated as such by the Rules. Each Organizations consists of the following elements: Rules.
\n
\ni) An associated SLC. ii) A set of Players underEach Organization shall have the Jurisdiction of the associated SLC. iii) A Name that is unique to that Organization. following properties:
\n
\nNo Organization exists that is nota) A Name. b) A Class. c) A Charter. d) An Administrator. e) One or more Members.
\n
\nAny of a class these properties may be changed by unanimous agreement of Organization that is defined in the Rules. The class of an Organization is specified when it is formed, and can not change thereafter. If a class of Organization ever becomes undefined in the Rules, then all Organizations of that class are immediately dissolved. Members, except for Class which may never change.
\n'),(38076,1531,404669,404728,'The Administrator of anEach Organization shall have an Administrator, who must be within the Jurisdiction of that Organization\'s SLC, be the Maintainer a Member. The Administrator of an Organization may only change as specified by its Charter or by the Organization\'s SLC, and be the Executor of that Organization. Rules.
\n
\n Administrator shall inform the Notary is Maintainer of the following changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the nature of Charter, unless otherwise specified by its Charter or by the change: Rules.
\n
\ni) The Name of the Organization changes. ii) TheThe Administrator of the Organization changes. iii) The is Executor of the Organization changes. iv) The Maintainer of the Organization\'s SLC changes. v) The Jurisdiction of Organization, unless otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Organization\'s SLC changes. vi) The Organization undergoes a Voluntary Dissolution. Rules.
\n
\n Administrator also shall be inform the Player required to maintain a record Notary of the Players within following changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the Jurisdiction nature of the Organization\'s SLC. change:
\n
\nRules governing specific classesa) The Name changes. b) The Administrator changes. c) The Executor changes. d) The Maintainer of Organizations may specify different duties for the Administrator. Charter changes. e) The jurisdiction of the Charter changes. f) The Organization voluntarily dissolves.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38077,1531,404728,405212,'Each Organization shall have an Administrator, who must be a Member. The Administrator of an Organization may only change as specified by its Charter or by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Administrator is Maintainer of the Charter, unless otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Administrator is Executor of the Organization, unless otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Administrator shall inform the Notary of the following changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the nature of the change:
\n
\n voluntarily dissolves. dissolves. g) The Charter changes.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38078,1531,405212,405457,'Each Organization shall have an Administrator, who must be a Member. The Administrator of an Organization may only change as specified by its Charter or by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Administrator is Maintainer of the Charter, unless otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Rules.
\n
\n Administrator is Executor of the Organization, unless otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Rules.
\n
\nThe Administrator shall inform the Notary Justiciar of the following changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the nature of the change:
\n
\na) The Name changes. b) The Administrator changes. c) The Executor changes. d) The Maintainer of the Charter changes. e) The jurisdiction of the Charter changes. f) The Organization voluntarily dissolves. g) The Charter changes.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38079,1533,404670,404692,' upon Execution, submission, must include the following:
\n
\ni) A defined class for the prospective Organization. ii) A unique Name for the prospective Organization. iii) An SLC for the prospective Organization. iv) All additional information required by the Rules governing the class of the prospective Organization. v) The signatures of at least as many distinct Players as required by the Rules governing the class of the prospective Organization, (minimum one) all of whom must be eligible to be members of the prospective Organization.
\n
\n is Executed submitted by submitting it to the Notary or by publishing it.
\n
\n of Executing submitting a valid ACO is to create the prospective Organization, with the signatories as its Foundors. The The Foundors then come under the Jurisdiction of that Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\n be Executed. submitted.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38080,1533,404692,404729,'There is a type of Application called anAn Application to Create an Organization (ACO). A valid ACO, in order (ACO) shall be submitted to have effect upon submission, must include the following: Notary.
\n
\ni) A defined class for the prospective Organization. ii) A unique Name for the prospective Organization. iii) An SLC for the prospective Organization. iv) All additional information required by the Rules governing the class of the prospective Organization. v) The signatures of at least as many distinct Players asTo be valid, an ACO must specify all properties that an Organization is required by the to have. Other Rules governing may place further conditions on the class of the prospective Organization, (minimum one) all validity of whom must be eligible to be members ACOs for a specific Class of the prospective Organization.
\n
\nA valid ACO is submitted by submitting it to the Notary or by publishing it.
\n
\nTheThe effect of submitting a valid ACO is to create the prospective Organization, with the Sponsor and signatories as its Foundors. The Foundors then come under the Jurisdiction of that Organization\'s SLC.
\n
\nAn ACO shall only be valid if its contents are not in conflict with this or other Rules. An ACO that is not valid shall never be submitted. and initial Members.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38081,1533,404729,405458,' the Notary. Justiciar.
\n
\nTo be valid, an ACO must specify all properties that an Organization is required to have. Other Rules may place further conditions on the validity of ACOs for a specific Class of Organization.
\n
\nThe effect of submitting a valid ACO is to create the prospective Organization, with the Sponsor and signatories as Foundors and initial Members.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38082,1539,404681,405147,'No Player within Jurisdiction of a Contest\'s Regulations is bound to obey any Regulation or combination of Regulations that conflict with the Rules.
\n
\nThe Regulations can specify the following:
\n
\ni) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become Contestmaster without eir consent. If left unspecified, the Contestmaster cannot change while the Contest exists. ii) How the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent. If this is not specified, they may only be spent when the Rules require it. iii) The amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of units of any specific Currency. iv) Additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants.
\n
\n the Contestmaster and paying Contestmaster. If the Contest Regulations specify an Entry Fee, the Player must also pay the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster. A Contestmaster may publicly resign at any time, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster.
\n'),(38083,1539,405147,405260,'No Player within JurisdictionThe regulations of a Contest\'s Regulations is bound to obey any Regulation or combination of Regulations that conflict with contest may specify the Rules. following:
\n
\nThe Regulations can specifya) How a contestmaster is replaced. No person may become contestmaster without eir consent. If left unspecified, the following: contestmaster cannot change while the contest exists.
\n
\ni) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become Contestmaster without eir consent. If left unspecified, the Contestmaster cannot change while the Contest exists. ii) How the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent. If this is not specified, they may only be spent when the Rules require it. iii) The amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of units of any specific Currency. iv) Additional restrictionsb) Restrictions on Players players to become Contestants, and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants. contestants.
\n
\nA Playerc) Conditions under which contestants cease to be contestants.
\n
\nNo player is bound to obey any regulation or combination of regulations that conflict with the Rules.
\n
\nA player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster. If the Contest Regulations specify an Entry Fee, the Player must also pay the prescribed Entry Fee contestant, or ceases to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit be a Contest at any time contestant, by so notifying the Contestmaster. A Contestmaster contestmaster.
\n
\nA contestmaster may publicly resign at any time, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster. contestmaster.
\n'),(38084,1551,404435,405629,'The ratification of an Official Document conforms the Game StateA document required to what it would be if the valid Official Document thus ratified was completely true maintained and accurate at the time the Document was published. In other words, the State of the Game, upon such ratification, becomes that specified within the Document, plus all subsequent legal changes between the time of its publication published by a player can be ratified if and its ratification. only if:
\n
\nAll Game State changes due to(a) the ratification correctness of an Official Document occur at the time of such ratification; no retroactive effect document is expressed or implied. not under dispute;
\n
\nA Document, once ratified, is for all legal purposes(b) the information within the document has not been superseded by a true and accurate report. The Game State subsequent document which contradicts it references may and whose correctness is not be retroactively modified prior to the time it was published, even to reflect a prior mistake, retracted or illegal move, or an Order. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would allow such retroactive alterations or corrections to the Game State. under dispute; and
\n
\nIn no way does(c) the ratification of a Document invalidate, reverse, alter or cancel any prior moves or transfers, even unrecorded or overlooked ones. Nor does document is not the ratification of a Document change the legality or illegality of any prior move. Ratification only adjusts the actual Game State to conform to that perceived by the Players and Officers in Official Documentation. ruleset.
\n
\nAfterIf a Document has been ratified, player attempts to ratify a document, or a legislative order executed by the Player in charge adoption of a proposal would ratify a document, then that document is not ratified unless it can be ratified.
\n
\nThe electee to an office is permitted to ratify, without objection, an official report e produced and was required to maintain by virtue of maintaining holding that office. The Speaker is permitted to ratify, without objection, any official report. In either case, a claim of error on such a report shall be deemed to constitute an objection to ratification.
\n
\nWhen a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that Document the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a 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.
\n
\nAfter a document has been ratified, its maintainer shall annotate all subsequent publications of that Document document with the date of publication of the last such publication most recent issue of that published that was ratified.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38085,1551,405629,405731,'A document required to be maintained and published by a player can be ratified if and only if:
\n
\n(a) the correctness of the document is not under dispute;
\n
\n(b) the information within the document has not been superseded by a subsequent document which contradicts it and whose correctness is not under dispute; and
\n
\n(c) the document is not the ruleset.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to ratify a document, or a legislative order executed by the adoption of a proposal would ratify a document, then that document is not ratified unless it can be ratified.
\n
\nThe electee to an officeAn officer is permitted to ratify, without objection, an official report e produced and was required to maintain by virtue of holding that office. The Speaker is permitted to ratify, without objection, any official report. In either case, a claim of error on such a report shall be deemed to constitute an objection to ratification. report.
\n
\nWhen a 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 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.
\n
\nAfter a document has been ratified, itsA document\'s maintainer shall annotate all subsequent publications of that document with the date of publication of the its most recent issue of that published that was ratified. ratification.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38086,1551,405731,406091,'An officer is permitted to ratify, without objection,Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part of an official report e produced and was required to maintain by virtue of holding that office. The Speaker is permitted to ratify, report, without objection, any official report. objection.
\n
\nWhen a 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 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.
\n
\nA document\'s maintainer shall annotate all publicationsWhere part of that document with an official report has been the subject of a ratification, the date of its the most recent ratification. such ratification is part of the same official report.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38087,1551,406091,406243,'Any player CAN ratify any purported publicationFor the purpose of all or this rule:
\n
\na) A document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
\n
\nb) An official document is a document labeled as part (possibly all) of an official report, report. The scope of an official document is the part of the official report that the official document is labeled as being.
\n
\nAny player CAN, without objection. objection, ratify part or all of an official document. 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.
\n
\nAny document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly challenged during that period.
\n
\nWhen a 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 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.
\n
\nWhere part of an official report has beenmust explicitly identify the subject of a ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is part of the same official report. document, either individually
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38088,1551,406243,406334,'For the purposeA public document is part (possibly all) of this rule: a public message.
\n
\na) AAn 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 public message. later date.
\n
\nb) An officialAny public document is a document labeled defined by the rules as part (possibly all) of an official report. The scope of an official document self-ratifying is the part of the official report ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly challenged during that the official document is labeled as being. period.
\n
\nAny player CAN, without objection, ratify part or all of an official document. 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.
\n
\nAny document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly challenged during that period.
\n
\nWhenWhen 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.
\n
\nmust explicitly identify the document, either individually
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38089,1551,406334,432222,'A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n explicitly and publicly challenged during that period via one of the following methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:
\n
\na) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal interpretation.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nmust explicitly identify the document, either individually
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38090,1551,432222,496723,'A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAny 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:
\n
\na) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal interpretation.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nmust explicitly identify the document, either individually
\n
\n
\n
\nRatifying a public document is secured.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38091,1552,404436,405214,'In order for anAn Official Document is legally permissible to be valid for the purpose of a Ratification, it must satisfy Ratify if and only if all of the following criteria at the time the Proposal which would Ratify it is Proposed: are true:
\n
\ni)a) The Rules require required some specific Player to produce and/or maintain the document. ii) The Rules required it to be published. (A requirement that it be sent to all Players fulfills this criterion.) iii) It is not currently subject to a Claim of Error. (COE) iv) It is not currently subject to a pending Call for Judgement (CFJ), or a pending Appeal of a CFJ. v) The information within the Document has not been superseded by a subsequent Document. vi) The Document is not the Ruleset. The Ruleset is specifically excluded from Ratification. document.
\n
\nFurther, a Document can become invalid during the Voting Period of a Proposal which would Ratifyb) The Rules required it if any of the following occurs: to be published. (A requirement that it be sent to all Players fulfills this criterion.)
\n
\ni)c) It is not currently subject to a Claim of Error (COE).
\n
\nd) It is not currently subject to a pending Call for Judgement (CFJ), or a pending Appeal of a CFJ.
\n
\ne) The information within the Document is has not been superseded by a subsequent Document which that contradicts the information in the prior Document. This it. (This does not apply if there is a COE alleging the contradiction is an error, and the in error is admitted before the end of the Proposal\'s Voting Period. ii) A COE admitted.)
\n
\nf) The Document is made on the Document, and the COE has not been denied before the end of Ruleset. The Ruleset is specifically excluded from Ratification.
\n
\nRatification by Proposal is effective only if the Proposal\'s Voting Period. iii) The Document becomes subject is legally permissible to a pending CFJ or a pending appeal of a CFJ. Ratify when the Proposal takes effect.
\n
\nIf, during the Voting Period of a Proposal to Ratify a Document, another Document is issued that does not contradict the prior Document, it does not alter the validity of the prior Document.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38092,1553,404449,405066,' so violates this Rule, and commits the Class 4 Crime of Improper Officer Transition.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38093,1555,404438,404787,'A Player who wins an Election for an Office, or is installed into Office by a Proposal, becomes the Electee to that Office, as well as its holder.
\n
\nWhen the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office, e ceases to be the Electee to that Office, but continues to hold the Office.
\n
\nWhen the Electee to an Office is removed from that Office, e ceases to be Electee to that Office. Furthermore, if the Electee currently holds the Office, the Speaker becomes the holder of that Office, unless another Rule provides that a different Player is to hold the Office.
\n
\nWhen a non-Electee is removed from an Office and there is an Electee to that Office, then the Electee becomes the holder of the Office. If there is no Electee, the Office is held by the Speaker.
\n
\n deregisters, or is deregistered, or becomes a Zombie, e is removed from all Offices e holds.
\n'),(38094,1555,404787,404896,'A Player who wins an Election for an Office, or is installed into Office by a Proposal, becomes the Electee to that Office, as well as its holder.
\n
\nWhen the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office, e ceases to be the Electee to that Office, but continues to hold the Office.
\n
\nWhen the Electee to an Office is removed from that Office, e ceases to be Electee to that Office. Furthermore, if the Electee currently holds the Office, the Speaker becomes the holder of that Office, unless another Rule provides that a different Player is to hold the Office.
\n
\nWhen a non-Electee is removed from an Office and there is an Electee to that Office, then the Electee becomes the holder of the Office. If there is no Electee, the Office is held by the Speaker.
\n
\nIfWhenever a Player goes On Hold, player deregisters, or is deregistered, or ceases to be active, e is removed from all Offices e holds.
\n'),(38095,1558,404512,405208,'When the Rules require that an Election be conducted to fill an Office, that Election shall be conducted in accordance with the usual Rules for Elections, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n Collector of the Election shall be is the Assistant Director of Personnel, unless Personnel at the Office which time the Election is seeking begins, unless the Election seeks to fill is that of the Office of Assistant Director of Personnel, in which case the Vote Collector shall be is the Speaker at the Speaker; and time the Election begins.
\n
\n* No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted Nomination, would not be permitted to hold the Office which the Election is seeking to fill.
\n'),(38096,1558,405208,405397,'When the Rules require that an Election be conducted to fill an Office, that Election shall be conducted in accordance with the usual Rules for Elections, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n* The Vote Collector is the Assistant Director of Personnel at the time the Election begins, unless the Election seeks to fill the Office of Assistant Director of Personnel, in which case the Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Election begins.
\n
\n* No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted Nomination, would not be permitted to hold the Office which the Election is seeking to fill.
\n
\n* If the Vote Collector fails to meet an ASAP requirement to publish a list of Candidates, or the identity of the winning Candidate, then the Election/Referendum does not fail, but becomes Stale. If a new Election for the same Office is initiated, then the stale Election/Referendum fails.
\n'),(38097,1558,405397,405513,'When the Rules require that an Election be conducted to fill an Office, that Election shall be conducted in accordance with the usual Rules for Elections, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n the Assistant Associate Director of Personnel at the time the Election begins, unless the Election seeks to fill the Office of Assistant Associate Director of Personnel, in which case the Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Election begins.
\n
\n* No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted Nomination, would not be permitted to hold the Office which the Election is seeking to fill.
\n
\n* If the Vote Collector fails to meet an ASAP requirement to publish a list of Candidates, or the identity of the winning Candidate, then the Election/Referendum does not fail, but becomes Stale. If a new Election for the same Office is initiated, then the stale Election/Referendum fails.
\n'),(38098,1558,405513,405594,' the Rules rules require that an Election election be conducted held to fill an Office, office, that Election election shall be conducted in accordance with the usual Rules rules for Elections, elections, with the following exceptions:
\n
\n* The Vote Collector is(a) If the Associate Director of Personnel at the time the Election begins, unless the Election seeks election would be held to fill the Office office of Associate Director of Personnel, in which case then the election shall be initiated by the Speaker; otherwise, it shall be initiated by the Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Election begins. Associate Director of Personnel.
\n
\n* No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted Nomination, would(b) A player who is not be permitted eligible to hold the Office office for which the Election election is being held is seeking to fill.
\n
\n* If the Vote Collector fails to meet an ASAP requirement to publish a list of Candidates, or the identity of the winning Candidate, then the Election/Referendum does not fail, but becomes Stale. If a new Election for the same Office is initiated, then the stale Election/Referendum fails. prospective.
\n'),(38099,1561,404503,405377,'Any Proposal which offers a bribe to a Player or Players to vote either FOR or AGAINST a Proposal (either itself or another Proposal) shall be completely without effect, even if it is adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nProposing a card with an element of Grafty is not considered bribery.
\n'),(38100,1562,404537,404938,'The Clerk of the Courts shall dismiss without prejudice anyA CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs during that the same Nomic Week. Such a CFJ Week is called an "excess CFJ". A Player who submits an excess CFJ commits the Class 1 Infraction of Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. CFJ.
\n
\nIfThe Caller of an Excess CFJ commits the Class 1 Infraction of Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts fails to shall dismiss an excess CFJ, and all Excess CFJs. If e instead assigns it one to a Judge, then the CFJ Judge shall not be dismissed for being an excess CFJ and shall be Judged (or dismissed) exactly as any other CFJ. Failing to dismiss an excess CFJ is Judge it, but the Clerk of the Courts commits the Class 2 Infraction of Allowing Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Justiciar.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38101,1562,404938,405050,' same Nomic Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ.
\n
\nThe Caller of an Excess CFJ commits the Class 1 Infraction of Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall dismiss all Excess CFJs. If e instead assigns one to a Judge, then the Judge shall Judge it, but the Clerk of the Courts commits the Class 2 Infraction of Allowing Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Justiciar.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38102,1564,404569,404955,'The Judgement entered in any CFJ by its Judge, the grant or denial of any Motion, and the execution of any Judicial Order following are all subject to review on appeal to a Board of Appeal. In addition, a Board of Appeal shall review any claim that a Judge has failed to perform any duty of a Judicial nature which e was required to perform. Appeal:
\n
\nIn all cases, the public insistence of any three Players is sufficient to initiate the appeala) The Judgement of a particular matter. In the case of the appeal Trial Judge. b) The grant or denial of a Judicial Order, the insistence of any Player bound by the Order is sufficient. In the case Motion. c) The execution of a Judgement which convicts Judicial Order. d) A claim that a Player of Trial Judge has failed to perform a Crime, the insistence of the convicted Player is sufficient. required judicial duty.
\n
\nIn each cases before a BoardA subject is Appealed when any of Appeal, it shall collectively decide whether to affirm or to reverse the matter under appeal, and shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination. following occurs:
\n
\ni) Three Players Appeal it. ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial Order binding em. iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a Crime.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(38103,1564,404955,405074,'The following are subject to Appeal:
\n
\n Judicial or Sentencing Order. d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required judicial duty.
\n
\nA subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:
\n
\n Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em. iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a Crime.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(38104,1564,405074,405716,'The following are subject to Appeal:
\n
\na) The Judgement of a Trial Judge. b) The grant or denial of a Motion. c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order. d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required judicial duty.
\n
\nA subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:
\n
\ni) Three Players Appeal it. ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em. iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a Crime.
\n
\nA single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order) may only be appealed once.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce the event.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(38105,1564,405716,405829,'The following are subject to Appeal:
\n
\na) The Judgement of a Trial Judge. b) The grant or denial of a Motion. c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order. d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required judicial duty.
\n
\nA subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:
\n
\ni) Three Players Appeal it. ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em. iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a Crime.
\n
\nA single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order) may only be appealed once.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce the event.
\n
\nAn Appeal may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Board of Appeals is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(38106,1564,405829,405961,'The following are subject to Appeal:
\n
\n Judicial or Sentencing Order. d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required judicial duty.
\n
\nA subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:
\n
\n Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em. iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a Crime.
\n
\nA single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order) may only be appealed once.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce the event.
\n
\nAn Appeal may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Board of Appeals is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(38107,1565,404551,404948,'A Judge must dismiss a CFJ Judgement of DISMISSED should be delivered if and only if one or more of the following is true of it: true:
\n
\ni) It contains no clearly-identifiable Statement. ii) Its Statement can not logically admit to either being TRUE or FALSE. iii) Its Statement The CFJ does not relate to a matter relevant to the Rules. iv) Its Statement fails to comply with the Rules. v) It lacks standing, as defined elsewhere. vi) After contain a reasonable effort by the Judge to obtain all relevant information, no determination can be made of the truth or falsity of its single clearly-identified Statement.
\n
\nThe Judge does this by notifying the CotC of the CFJ\'s dismissal, and the reasons e is doing so. Dismissals are only legal when made for the reasons listed in this Rule. Dismissal occurs when the CotC is notified of a legal dismissal.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after being notified ofii) After a legal dismissal, the CotC must publicly post a notice of the dismissal and reasonable effort to obtain all relevant information, the Judge\'s reasons for doing so.
\n
\nIf Judge can neither determine the dismissal, upon appeal, is subsequently set aside, then that CFJ is no longer dismissed. It shall Statement to be considered again and can not again true nor determine it to be legally dismissed for the same reasons.
\n
\nA Judge who dismisses a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a Judicial Salary. false.
\n
\niii) The Statement does not relate to a matter relevant to the Rules.
\n
\niv) The CFJ lacks standing, as defined elsewhere.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38108,1567,404542,404943,' by transmitting a notice to informing the Clerk of the Courts, specifying the CFJ or type of CFJ for which Courts that e wishes to be made ineligible. does so. Such a notice remains in effect for one month, or until the Player informs the Clerk of the Courts that it is no longer in effect. effect, whichever is soonest.
\n
\n the CotC. Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(38109,1568,404543,404902,'Any PlayerA player who goes on Hold ceases to be active while selected as the Judge judge of one or more CFJs calls for judgement (CFJs) commits the Infraction infraction of Judge Inactivity. This Infraction infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts, and has a penalty of 0.1 Indulgences times the number of for each CFJs for which the Player player was selected as Judge judge when e went On Hold. ceased to be active.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38110,1568,404902,405168,' a penalty Class of 0.1 Indulgences for each times the number of CFJs for which the player was selected as judge when e ceased to be active.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38111,1570,404568,404954,'The Clerk of the Courts shall make an announcement in the Public Forum asAs soon as possible after an Appeal has been is initiated, including in eir announcement the matter of consideration of the Appeal and the identity Clerk of the Justices selected to serve on Courts shall announce the Board of Appeals and which (if any) subject of these Players are ineligible to fill the positions to which they have been assigned. Appeal.
\n
\nThe Clerk shall also make an announcement to the Public Forum asAs soon as possible after any change in a Player becomes an Appelate Judge or ceases to be an Appelate Judge, the identity Clerk of the Justices that takes place after Courts shall announce the Board has been constituted. change.
\n'),(38112,1570,404954,405611,'As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce the subject of the Appeal.
\n
\n an Appelate Appellate Judge or ceases to be an Appelate Appellate Judge, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce the change.
\n'),(38113,1575,404548,404947,'A CFJ alleging that a Player has violated a Rule or committed a CrimeUnless otherwise specified, all Judgements shall not be judged TRUE unless consistent with the evidence is sufficient to be certain preponderance of that Judgement beyond reasonable doubt. the evidence.
\n
\nIn all other CFJs, the JudgementA Judge shall be consistent with not find that a Player has failed to perform a duty unless the preponderance of the evidence at hand. provided by the Caller supports the claim.
\n
\nFurthermore, it isA Judge shall not find that a defense to any accusation of Player has violated a Rule or committed a Crime that unless the evidence provided by the Caller places its certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, a Judge shall not find that a Player committed a Crime if that Player reasonably believed that eir actions were action or inaction was not a Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not know that e was required to perform an action, when such nonperformance is defined as a Crime. A Player shall not be convicted of a Crime if this defense applies. it occurred.
\n'),(38114,1575,404947,405712,'Unless otherwise specified, all Judgements shall be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence.
\n
\nA Judge shall defendant may not find that a Player has failed to perform be assessed punitive damages for Rules Violations any worse than a duty formal apology, unless the preponderance of a Judge finds that evidence provided by for the Caller supports the claim. violation is beyond a reasonable doubt.
\n
\nA Judge shall not find that a Player has violated a Rule or committed a Crime unless theThe published Report of an Officer constitutes prima facie evidence provided by of the Caller places its certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, a Judge shall not find that a Player committed a Crime if truth of those matters reported therein which that Player reasonably believed that eir action or inaction was not a Crime at Officer is required by law to report. This presumption may be set aside only by clear and convincing evidence to the time it occurred. contrary.
\n'),(38115,1586,496683,496866,'Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT haveIf multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined entity\'s name or nickname. CANNOT be changed to be the same as another rule-defined entity.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n'),(38116,1586,496866,496946,' rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined document-defined entity\'s name CANNOT be changed to be the same as another rule-defined document-defined entity.
\n
\nIf the Rules definingA document referring to an entity are repealed or amended such that they no longer define by name refers to the entity that entity, then had that entity and its properties cease name when the document first came to exist. include that reference, even if the entity\'s name has since changed.
\n
\n the Rules documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its properties cease to exist.
\n
\nIf the documents 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.
\n'),(38117,1586,496946,497397,' document-defined entity. entity\'s name.
\n
\nA document referring to an entity by name refers to the entity that had that name when the document first came to include that reference, even if the entity\'s name has since changed.
\n
\nIf the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its properties cease to exist.
\n
\nIf the documents 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.
\n'),(38118,1586,497397,404395,'If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to define an entity with the same name, then they refer toNo two Rule-defined entities shall have the same entity. A document-defined entity\'s name CANNOT be changed to be the same as another document-defined entity\'s name. or nickname.
\n
\nA document referring to an entity by name refers toIf the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that had they no longer define that name when the document first came to include entity, then that reference, even if the entity\'s name has since changed. entity along with all its properties shall cease to exist.
\n
\n the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its properties cease to exist.
\n
\nIf the documents Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still define that entity but with different properties, then that entity and its properties shall continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definitions.
\n'),(38119,1594,404661,405082,'AWhile a Player who is remains within the Jurisdiction of a SLC SLC, e is required to abide by it while e remains within its Jurisdiction, it, unless doing so would violate either the Rules or another SLC with higher precedence.
\n
\nA Player who fails to abide by a SLC is in violation Violation of that SLC. A Player who is found by a CFJ to have violated a SLC shall suffer whatever penalties specified in the Rules authorizing the violated SLC, or, if there this requirement is no such penalty specified, a default penalty of one Blot, to be reported by the Judge Class 1 Crime of the CFJ.
\n
\nThere shall be no additional penalty imposed upon a Player who violates this Rule by violating a SLC; this Rule takes precedence over any Rule which specifies penalties for violating Rules. Insubordination.
\n'),(38120,1596,404615,404809,'(a) A "debt" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one entity (the "debtor") to make a transfer of one or more Properties to some other entity (the "creditor").
\n
\n(b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor. If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted, the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is posted.
\n
\n(c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of multiple transfers).
\n
\n(d) A debt is forgiven when the creditor of a debt sends a notice to the debtor that e is forgiving the debt. Forgiveness may be for the entire debt or for any part thereof. The effect forgiving a debt is as if the debtor had made a payment on the debt for the portion forgiven, except that no transfer of property takes place thereby.
\n
\n the transferred transferred Property to the entity that made the transfer.
\n
\n(f) If two entities are each others\' debtor, and all or part of their debts to each other are for the same quantity (equal portions) of the same fungible Property, then a public announcement of this mutual debt by either entity will have the effect of satisfying the equal portions of the debts for both debtors as in (c) above.
\n'),(38121,1596,404809,404842,'(a) A "debt" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one entity (the "debtor") to make a transfer of one or more Properties to some other entity (the "creditor").
\n
\n(b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor. If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted, the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is posted.
\n
\n(c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of multiple transfers).
\n
\n(d) A debt is forgiven when the creditor of a debt sends a notice to the debtor that e is forgiving the debt. Forgiveness may be for the entire debt or for any part thereof. The effect forgiving a debt is as if the debtor had made a payment on the debt for the portion forgiven, except that no transfer of property takes place thereby.
\n
\n(e) An entity which receives Property as the result of an unauthorized transfer incurs a debt for the transferred Property to the entity that made the transfer.
\n
\n(f) If two entities are each others\' debtor, and all or part of their debts to each other are for the same quantity (equal portions) of the same fungible Property, then a public announcement of this mutual debt by either entity will have the effect of satisfying the equal portions of the debts for both debtors as in (c) above.
\n'),(38122,1596,404842,405000,'(a) A "debt" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one entity (the "debtor") to make a transfer of one or more Properties to some other entity (the "creditor").
\n
\n(b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor. If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted, the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is posted.
\n
\n(c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of multiple transfers).
\n
\n thereof. The The effect of forgiving a debt is as if to relieve the debtor had made a payment on the debt for of the portion forgiven, except obligation arising from that no transfer part of property takes place thereby. the debt which has been forgiven to transfer Property to the creditor.
\n
\n(e) If two entities are each others\' debtor, and all or part of their debts to each other are for the same quantity (equal portions) of the same fungible Property, then a public announcement of this mutual debt by either entity will have the effect of satisfying the equal portions of the debts for both debtors as in (c) above.
\n'),(38123,1598,404614,404742,'(a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity (the "transferor") to some other entity (the "transferee").
\n
\n(b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally: (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by the transferor; and (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect to all of the Properties involved.
\n
\n(c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor receives a valid Notice of Transfer.
\n
\n(d) The effect of a transfer of Properties is to cause the transferor to cease to possess the Properties transferred, and simultaneously to cause the transferee to possess them.
\n
\n(e) The Recordkeepor of a Property shall maintain a record of all transfers of that Property. E shall retain a record of each Notice of Transfer which e receives (whether valid or not) involving that Property. E shall retain this record of each Notice of Transfer for at least four weeks after its receipt.
\n
\n the transferor\'s Executor transferor may publicly demand the return of the Property. The effect of such a demand is to cause the transferee to incur a debt to the transferor for the Property transferred. transferred.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38124,1598,404742,404753,''),(38125,1599,404616,404699,' time, Order demand the debtor to satisfy that debt; but debt, provided e may has not do already done so. E does so if any other Order neither satisfied nor vacated exists requiring by sending a message to the debtor setting forth the same demand. The debtor shall have seven days to satisfy the same debt, or debt from the time the demand is sent, except that if the debt debtor\'s Executor is disputed. The on Hold at the time the demand is sent, the debtor shall instead have seven days from when the debtor\'s Executor comes off Hold to satisfy the debt. Time during which a debt from the time the Order is executed. disputed is not counted for any purpose of this Rule.
\n
\nAny entity Ordered to satisfy aA debt who fails to do so not satisfied within the time allowed by this Rule commits the Infraction of Persistent Indebtedness becomes delinquent when that time first elapses, and further does so again every seven days after the time allowed has expired. Time during which the debt is disputed or the Order is stayed is not counted for the purpose of this Rule. If the Executor of the entity so Ordered is on Hold at the time the Order is issued, the time shall not begin elapses. It ceases to run until the Executor comes off Hold. These Infractions shall be reported by the creditor of the debt and carry a penalty of one Blot. delinquent when it is satisfied.
\n
\nNo Order to satisfy a debt shall be enforced in any way after such time as the debtAny Player who is satisfied, and either: (a) the executor Executor of any such Order shall vacate it as soon as the underlying debt is satisfied. If an entity which owes a debt becomes disputed, any Order delinquent debt, or (b) a Limited Executor of an entity which has no Executor and which owes a delinquent debt, where: (1) that Player has the authority to execute a transfer for that entity which would satisfy the disputed delinquent debt, and (2) that entity possesses sufficient Property such that the delinquent debt shall can be stayed by its executor for the duration of satisfied; commits the dispute. The Clerk Class 1 Infraction of Persistent Indebtedness when that debt first becomes delinquent, and commits it again every seven days thereafter for as long as the Courts debt remains delinquent. This Infraction may stay, and a Judge stay or vacate, any Order which should properly be stayed or vacated (respectively) under this Rule in the event reported by the executor creditor of the Order neglects to do so. delinquent debt.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38126,1599,404699,404906,' is on Hold not active at the time the demand is sent, the debtor shall instead have seven days from when the debtor\'s time eir Executor comes off Hold becomes active to satisfy the debt. Time during which a debt is disputed is not counted for any purpose of this Rule.
\n
\nA debt not satisfied within the time allowed by this Rule becomes delinquent when that time elapses. It ceases to be delinquent when it is satisfied.
\n
\nAny Player who is either: (a) the Executor of an entity which owes a delinquent debt, or (b) a Limited Executor of an entity which has no Executor and which owes a delinquent debt, where: (1) that Player has the authority to execute a transfer for that entity which would satisfy the delinquent debt, and (2) that entity possesses sufficient Property such that the delinquent debt can be satisfied; commits the Class 1 Infraction of Persistent Indebtedness when that debt first becomes delinquent, and commits it again every seven days thereafter for as long as the debt remains delinquent. This Infraction may be reported by the creditor of the delinquent debt.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38127,1599,404906,404992,'The(a) Provided that e has not already done so, the Executor of the creditor of any unsatisfied debt may, at any time, may demand that the debtor to satisfy that debt, provided e has not already done so. E does so by sending a message to the debtor setting forth notifying the demand. The debtor shall have seven days to satisfy the debt from the time the demand is sent, except that if the debtor\'s Executor is not active at the time the demand is sent, the debtor shall instead have seven days from the time eir Executor becomes active to satisfy the debt. Time during which a debt is disputed is not counted for any purpose of this Rule. the demand.
\n
\nA debt not satisfied within(b) The debtor shall have seven days from the time allowed by this Rule becomes delinquent when of the notification to satisfy the debt, except that if the debtor is not active at the time elapses. It ceases the demand is sent, the debtor shall instead have seven days from the time e becomes active to be delinquent when it satisfy the debt. Time during which a debt is disputed is satisfied. not counted for the purposes of this Rule.
\n
\nAny(c) A debt not satisfied within the time allowed by this Rule becomes delinquent when that time elapses. It ceases to be delinquent when it is satisfied.
\n
\n(d) Any Player who is either: (a) the Prime Executor of an entity which owes a delinquent debt, or (b) a Limited Executor of an entity which has no Executor and which owes a delinquent debt, where: (1) that Player has the authority with respect to execute a transfer for that entity which would satisfy the delinquent debt, and (2) satisfaction of a debt owed by that entity possesses sufficient Property such that the delinquent debt can be satisfied; commits the Class 1 Infraction of Persistent Indebtedness when that debt first becomes delinquent, and commits it again every seven days thereafter for as long as the debt remains delinquent. This This Infraction may be reported by the creditor of the delinquent debt.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38128,1607,404475,404829,'There exists the Office of Promotor, whose responsibility itThe Promotor is to receive and distribute Proposals, an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Papyri and to be the Recordkeepor is responsible for Papyri. receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\n Promotor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the titles and submission dates of all Proposals proposals in the Proposal Pool. proposal pool.
\n'),(38129,1607,404829,405159,' is recordkeepor of Papyri and is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the titles and submission dates of all proposals in the proposal pool.
\n'),(38130,1607,405159,405734,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s Weekly Report Promotor is permitted to distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of the week.
\n
\nThe Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being distributed. 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.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall include a list with the distribution of each proposal the identity of its proposer, the titles proposal\'s coauthors, if any, its chamber, and submission dates its adoption index. However, the failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal does not deprive the distribution of all proposals in the proposal pool. of any legal effect.
\n'),(38131,1607,405734,406042,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\n Promotor is permitted to MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must SHALL distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was that has been in the Proposal Pool at since the beginning of the that week.
\n
\n Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being distributed. 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.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall include with the distribution of each proposalWhen distributing a proposal, the identity of its proposer, Promotor SHALL specify the proposal\'s coauthors, following:
\n
\na) Its author (and co-authors, if any, its chamber, and its any). b) Its adoption index. However, the failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal does not deprive the distribution of the proposal of any legal effect. c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic. d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.
\n'),(38132,1607,406042,406109,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the following:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n'),(38133,1607,406109,432235,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the following:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool.
\n'),(38134,1607,432235,432293,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the following:
\n
\n b) Its adoption index. c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic. d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool.
\n'),(38135,1607,432293,432356,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen distributingFor an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the following: following are essential parameters:
\n
\n b) Whether it is interested or disinterested. Its interest index.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool.
\n'),(38136,1607,432356,496740,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\n time. During each week, The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the Promotor SHALL distribute distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning of that week.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nFor an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the following are essential parameters:
\n
\na) Its author (and co-authors, if any). b) Its interest index.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool.
\n'),(38137,1607,496740,497196,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\n Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning of that week.
\n
\n elsewhere.
\n
\nFor For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the following are essential parameters:
\n
\na) Its author (and co-authors, if any). b) Its interest index.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool.
\n'),(38138,1607,497196,497430,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\n Proposal The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning of that week.
\n
\nThe 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. ForFor an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the following are essential parameters:
\n
\na) Its author (and co-authors, if any). b) Its interest index.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38139,1607,497430,496957,'The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.
\n
\n Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning of that week. week.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nFor an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the following are essential parameters:
\n
\na) Its author (and co-authors, if any). b) Its interest index.
\n
\nDistributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor.
\n
\nThe Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38140,1612,404668,404727,'Unless otherwise specified inEach Organization has an Organization\'s associated SLC, that SLC can be changed by the unanimous consent known as its Charter. The Charter of all the Players within an Organization may only change as specified by its Charter or by the SLCs Jurisdiction. Rules.
\n
\nThe JurisdictionA Member of an Organization\'s SLC Organization is permitted to vary over a Player within the period jurisdiction of its existence. The SLC Charter.
\n
\nRules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player shall ever involuntarily become a Member of an Organization.
\n
\nWhen an Organization ceases to exist when the Organization exist, its Charter ceases to exist.
\n'),(38141,1614,404667,404725,' Organization shall have has a unique name. No action is permitted that would allow either a nameless Organization to exist.
\n
\nThe Name. The Name of an Organization shall may only be changed change as specified by its SLC, Charter or as specified in the Rules. If no other procedure is specified, the Name of any Organization shall change with the unanimous consent of all Players within by the Jurisdiction of that Organization\'s SLC. Rules.
\n'),(38142,1623,404472,405220,'A Proposal may be Interested or Disinterested. Each ProposalInterest is Interested when made. The Proposer of a Proposal stuck proposal switch with values interested and disinterested.
\n
\nA player may cause it flip an undistributed proposal\'s interest to become Disinterested, disinterested, without objection, but only if the Proposal has objection.
\n
\nWhen a proposal becomes disinterested, it becomes distributable, and its depth may not yet been distributed. be flipped to undistributable while it remains disinterested.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38143,1623,405220,405241,''),(38144,1626,404517,404689,' any body of text designated document which has been clearly labeled as such an Application and which has been submitted as an Application by a Player. This Player some person. That person is known as its the Application\'s Sponsor.
\n
\nA Player\'s Signature is added toThe Sponsor of an Application when e sends a message may attach the signatures of other persons, or signatories, to that Application\'s Sponsor indicating that the Application at the time e wishes submits it. The Sponsor may not attach any signature to sign it. an Application without first having obtained the explicit consent of the signatory. A signatory may revoke eir consent, once granted, by informing the Sponsor.
\n
\nA Player\'s Signature is stricken from theAn Application when e sends a message is submitted by sending it to a Player designed by the Sponsor Rules to receive Applications of that particular type, bearing a clear indication that the document in question is intended to be an Application stating and that e wishes eir signature stricken. Further, it is being submitted by the Sponsor as an Application. If the Rules do not otherwise designate a Player to receive a particular type of Application, the Speaker shall do so. The effect of submitting an valid Application may strike any Signature from is determined by the Application at any time. Rules pertaining to Applications of that particular type.
\n
\nIfA person who submits an Application is amended in with signatures attached belonging to any way (except person who has not consented to having eir signature attached to that Application commits the Class 4 Crime of Application Fraud. An Application submitted with attached signatures belonging to add or strike a Signature), any and all Signatures which appear on it are stricken from it. person who did not consent to such attachment is invalid.
\n
\nAn Application is Executed when its Sponsor submits it to whatever Officer or other Player is designated by the RulesSignatures are presumed to receive Applications of that particular type, have been attached with whatever effect is defined by the Rules for the Execution of that type consent of Application. However, any other Rule notwithstanding, the Execution of an Application signatory. This presumption shall have no effect unless Executed be rebutted only by a declaration from the alleged signatory, made within 14 60 days of the time submission of the Application, stating that the oldest Signature which appears on it was added. signatory did not consent or that e consented and then subsequently revoked eir consent. The Sponsor bears the burden of proof to show that such a declaration, once made, is false.
\n
\nIfIt shall be a Player Executing an Application claims that defense to the Crime of Application contains certain Signatures, but Fraud that the purported Signatures have Sponsor did not been added to it in receive a manner consistent with this Rule, e commits the Class 4 Crime signatory\'s notice of Application Fraud. revocation.
\n'),(38145,1626,404689,405726,' any document which has been clearly labeled as an Application and document, which has been submitted as an Application by some person. That person person, to a Player designed by the Rules to receive Applications of that particular type. The submittor is known as the Application\'s Sponsor.
\n
\n the Sponsor.
\n
\nAn Application is submitted by sending it to a Player designed by the Rules to receive Applications of that particular type, bearing a clear indication that the document in question is intended to be an Application and that it is being submitted by the Sponsor as an Application. If the Rules do not otherwise designate a Player to receive a particular type of Application, the Speaker shall do so. The effect of submitting an valid Application is determined by the Rules pertaining to Applications of that particular type.
\n
\nA person who submits an Application with signatures attached belonging to any person who has not consented to having eir signature attached to that Application commits the Class 4 Crime of Application Fraud. An Application submitted with attached signatures belonging to a person who did not consent to such attachment is invalid. before submission.
\n
\nSignatures are presumed to have been attached with the consent of the signatory. This presumption shall be rebutted only by a declaration from the alleged signatory, made within 60 days of the submission of the Application, stating that the signatory did not consent or that e consented and then subsequently revoked eir consent. The Sponsor bears the burden of proof to show that such a declaration, once made, is false.
\n
\nIt shall be a defense to the Crime of Application Fraud that the Sponsor did not receive a signatory\'s notice of revocation.
\n'),(38146,1626,405726,405768,' The submittor submitter is known as the Application\'s Sponsor.
\n
\nThe Sponsor of an Application may attach the signatures of other persons, or signatories, to the Application at the time e submits it. The Sponsor may not attach any signature to an Application without first having obtained the explicit consent of the signatory. A signatory may revoke eir consent, once granted, by informing the Sponsor before submission.
\n
\nSignatures are presumed to have been attached with the consent of the signatory. This presumption shall be rebutted only by a declaration from the alleged signatory, made within 60 days of the submission of the Application, stating that the signatory did not consent or that e consented and then subsequently revoked eir consent. The Sponsor bears the burden of proof to show that such a declaration, once made, is false.
\n'),(38147,1645,404442,404872,'The Electee to anAn Office or the Speaker, if e holds that Office, is permitted to appoint another Player to perform the duties of that Office. This is called Delegation. The Player doing the appointing is herein referred to as the Delegating Player and the Player so appointed is herein referred to as the Delegated Player. when all of these conditions are met:
\n
\nAn Office is legally(a) The holder (hereafter known as the Delegating Player) publishes a Notice of Delegation, naming the Office, another Player (hereafter known as the Delegated if Player), and only if the following conditions are met: a Period of Delegation no longer than three weeks.
\n
\n(a) the(b) The Delegating Player has published a is Electee to the Office, or is the Speaker. This condition must hold when e publishes the Notice of Delegation, naming the Office being Delegated and must also hold at the beginning of the Delegated Player; Period of Delegation.
\n
\n(b) the(c) The Delegated Player is permitted by the Rules to hold the Office at the commencement beginning of the Period of Delegation; Delegation.
\n
\n(c) the(d) The Delegated Player has published a Notice of Consent consents to Delegation for that Office during the Delegation within seven days immediately preceding or immediately following of the publishing publication of the Notice of Delegation.
\n
\n(d) the Delegating Player is still permitted to Delegate the Office at the commencement of the(e) The Period of Delegation; Delegation has begun and not yet ended.
\n
\n(e) theThe Period of Delegation has commenced and not yet concluded. begins when the Notice of Delegation is published, or when consent is given, or at the time (if any) specified in the Notice of Delegation, whichever is latest.
\n
\n Delegation commences at ends after the time the Notice of Delegation is posted, or at the time duration specified in the Notice of Consent to Delegation is posted, has elapsed, or at the time (if any) specified by when a Player other than the Delegating Player, whichever is latest. The Period of Delegation concludes when any of Player becomes Electee to the following occur: Office.
\n
\n(a) a Player other than the Delegating Player becomes the Electee to the Office; (b) the time (if any) specified by the Delegating Player as the end ofDuring the Period of Delegation is reached; or (c) Delegation, the Delegated Office has been continuously Delegated for three weeks. Player holds the Office, and earns its Salary as specified by other Rules.
\n
\nDuring the Period of Delegation, the Delegating Player ceases to hold the Delegated Office; the Delegated Player holds the Office, and earns the Salary for that Office as described in other Rules.
\n
\nAtAt the end of the Period of Delegation, the Delegated Player ceases to hold the Delegated Office, and the Electee to the Office commences holding the Office, if the Office has an Electee. If the Office has no Electee, then the Electee holds the Office; otherwise, the Delegated Player continues to hold the Office.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38148,1647,404650,404855,'There exists the Office of Speaker-Elect, whose responsibility itThe Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is to be usually the Speaker\'s successor.
\n
\n of Speaker-Elect. Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that Office.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar cannot Nominate for the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as defined by other Rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38149,1647,404855,405100,'The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the Speaker\'s successor.
\n
\nWhenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that Office.
\n
\n cannot Nominate be Nominated for the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as defined by other Rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38150,1647,405100,405316,'The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the Speaker\'s successor.
\n
\nWhenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that Office.
\n
\n the Courts and Courts, Justiciar and Assistant Director of Personnel cannot be Nominated for the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as defined by other Rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38151,1647,405316,405329,'The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the Speaker\'s successor.
\n
\nWhenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that Office.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts, Justiciar and Assistant Director of Personnel cannot be Nominated for the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as defined by other Rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38152,1647,405329,405532,'The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the Speaker\'s successor.
\n
\nWhenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker,For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e ceases to be Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from a pope. Upon this announcement, that Office.
\n
\nWhen the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as defined by other Rules.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect. player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38153,1658,404652,405533,'A Speaker shall become Tainted when a Referendum calling for the Tainting ofThe person holding the Speaker passes. Any Active Player is authorized to call such a Referendum at any time, by publicly requesting such.
\n
\nThis Referendum must name the offending Speaker, and if that Player is Speaker upon passage position of this Referendum, that Speaker is Tainted.
\n
\nFor this Referendum the default procedure for Referenda is modified untained as follows:
\n
\n* The Vote Collector is the Registrar * Voters do not include the Speaker. * The Adoption Index is 2. long as e holds that position lawfully.
\n'),(38154,1658,405533,405541,' is untained untainted as long as e holds that position lawfully.
\n'),(38155,1659,404516,405595,'AThe Speaker who is not Tainted has the right to call Elections. This elections, and e exercises this right is exercised by posting a public announcement that lists publishing a notice listing a number of Offices, offices and declares declaring that the Speaker e is exercising eir right to call Elections elections for these Offices. offices. If the Speaker posts such a message, is not Tainted at the time of posting, and e has not exercised this right since e last became Speaker, then upon the Electee publication of each Office on the list (assuming that this notice, the Office has an Electee) electee of each listed office is retired from Office. office.
\n'),(38156,1661,404618,405177,' week, order the award of Stems from the Bank Boon Gold Star to specific Players, only as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nThe Speaker exercises this right by paying out Stems to one or more Players, with a total of not more than one-half the Basic Officer Salary. The Players to receive the award must single Player who has not have received a Patronage this award within the preceding four weeks, and the weeks. The Speaker must provide a reason along with the Notice of Transfer. All such Patronage Awards in a single Week must be posted in a single message. Award.
\n
\nSuch awards are only permitted to recognize acts the Speaker believes to be of benefit to the Agora community, acts that the Speaker believes to exceed the call of duty, or acts that the Speaker believes to be of extreme sacrifice for the good of the Game.
\n'),(38157,1661,405177,405642,' Speaker who is not Tainted has the Right of Patronage. This This Right is the authority to, once a week, award the Boon Gold Star to a single Player who has not received this award within the preceding four weeks. The Speaker must provide a reason along with the Notice of Award.
\n
\nSuch awards are only permitted to recognize acts the Speaker believes to be of benefit to the Agora community, acts that the Speaker believes to exceed the call of duty, or acts that the Speaker believes to be of extreme sacrifice for the good of the Game.
\n'),(38158,1664,404451,404799,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n - All positions in The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the Oligarchy become vacant. - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - The Registrar shall levy a 75% Indulgence tax. For this levy, the Bearor of the Patent Title "Robespierre" is tax-exempt. - A Speaker Transition occurs - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\n Political Status Status, Oligarchy membership, and Indulgence holdings of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38159,1664,404799,405014,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n out 40 8 Stems to each Rebellious player - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the Oligarchy - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - The Registrar shall levy a 75% Indulgence tax. For this levy, the Bearor of the Patent Title "Robespierre" is tax-exempt. - A Speaker Transition occurs - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status, Oligarchy membership, and Indulgence holdings of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38160,1664,405014,405153,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n shall pay out 8 Stems grant the emphemeral Patent Title Rebel Hero to each Rebellious player player. - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the Oligarchy - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - The Registrar shall levy a 75% Indulgence tax. For this levy, the Bearor of the Patent Title "Robespierre" is tax-exempt. - A Speaker Transition occurs - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\n Oligarchy membership, and Indulgence holdings membership of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38161,1664,405153,405215,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n the emphemeral ephemeral Patent Title Rebel Hero to each Rebellious player. - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the Oligarchy - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - A Speaker Transition occurs - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status, Oligarchy membership of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38162,1664,405215,405278,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n Transition occurs - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled occurs
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status, Oligarchy membership of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38163,1664,405278,405280,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n The GWotO shall remove all Lobbying Strength of each Abiding Oligarchs from the Oligarchy Player is set to 0 - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - A Speaker Transition occurs
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\n Political Status, Oligarchy membership Status of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38164,1664,405280,405307,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n - The Lobbying Strength All Stock Cards in the possession of each Abiding Player is set Players are returned to 0 the Deck - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - A Speaker Transition occurs
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38165,1664,405307,405355,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n the Deck Deck, and all Abiding Players have their initiative switched to Gote. - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - A Speaker Transition occurs
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38166,1664,405355,405433,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:
\n
\n and all Abiding Players have their the initiative switched of each Abiding Player is set to Gote. - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - If the Speaker is not Rebellious, A Speaker Transition occurs
\n
\nIf a Revolt does not succeed, then:
\n
\n- All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status of players at the time of the Call.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule.
\n'),(38167,1664,405433,405522,'A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time is a notice submitted by publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt a player (the Agitator) which alleges, roughly, that the current government is only effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made corrupt, oppressive and self-serving, that week rather than watching over the people it is watching the people, that action must be taken, and no successful Revolt has occurred for furthermore asserts that we do not need a month or more. key, because we can break in. The Call is valid only if:
\n
\nAs soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been posted,(a) the Registrar must determine whether Agitator was rebellious when e submitted the Revolt succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result. Call;
\n
\nThe Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this calculation are determined at the time of the(b) no other Call for Revolt. has been made during the same week; and
\n
\nIf a(c) no Revolt succeeds, then has been successful for the following events occur in order: previous thirty days.
\n
\n- The Registrar shall expungeAs soon as possible after a valid Call for Revolt has been submitted, the Blots of each Rebellious player - The Registrar shall grant perform the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel Hero to each Rebellious player. - All Stock Cards following events in the possession of Abiding Players are returned to the Deck, and the initiative of each Abiding Player is set to Gote. - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office. - All Rebellious players become Abiding again - If the Speaker is not Rebellious, A Speaker Transition occurs order:
\n
\nIf(a) select a Revolt does not succeed, then: random integer from 1 to the number of players (plus 1 if a player bears Miscreant);
\n
\n- All Rebellious(b) if the selected number is less than or equal to the number of rebellious players gain 2 Blots. - The (plus 1 if a rebellious player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots bears Miscreant), then:
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political Status of players at(1) announce that the time of the Call. Revolt succeeds;
\n
\nThe(2) expunge the blots of each rebellious player;
\n
\n(3) grant the ephemeral patent title Rebel Hero to each rebellious player;
\n
\n(4) set the initiative of each abiding player to Goethe, and return all stock cards held by abiding players to the Deck;
\n
\n(5) retire each abiding electee from office; and
\n
\n(6) flip each rebellious player\'s orthodoxy to abiding;
\n
\notherwise:
\n
\n(1) announce that the Call for Revolt has failed;
\n
\n(2) assess each rebellious player 2 blots; and
\n
\n(3) assess the Agitator an additional 2 blots.
\n
\nThe effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the orthodoxy of players at the time the Call was submitted.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots blots gained or expunged as a result of this Rule. rule, and is empowered to perform the actions this rule would require em to perform.
\n'),(38168,1670,404585,405211,'The person who is most responsible for the maintainance of one or more Public Fora, in the opinion of the Registrar, shall be known as the Distributor. Any changes in the identity of the Distributor shall take effect when announced publicly by the Registrar.
\n
\n of the all listed e-mail addresses of all Players, as well as to inform the Distributor of any address change listing or unlisting as soon as possible after e learns of it.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(38169,1670,405211,405614,' the maintainance maintenance of one or more Public Fora, in the opinion of the Registrar, shall be known as the Distributor. Any changes in the identity of the Distributor shall take effect when announced publicly by the Registrar.
\n
\nThe Registrar is obliged to keep the Distributor informed of all listed e-mail addresses of all Players, as well as to inform the Distributor of any listing or unlisting as soon as possible after e learns of it.
\n
\n(unattributed) (unattributed)
\n'),(38170,1677,404411,404990,' shall Order the Treasuror to pay out the New Player Award for each Bank Currency to the new Player.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules indicate that the Bank incurs a debt to an entity equal to the New Player Award, the Bank shall instead incur for each Bank Currency a debt to that entity equal to the New Player Award for that Currency.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38171,1677,404990,405149,' shall pay out the New Player Award for each Bank Currency to the new Player.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules indicate that the Bank incurs a debt to an entity equal to the New Player Award, the Bank announce eir Arrival. This Announcement shall instead incur for each Bank Currency a debt to have the effect of setting that entity equal Player\'s kudos to twice the New Player Award for that Currency. Tabla Rasa.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38172,1677,405149,405217,'As soon as possible after the beginning of a Player\'s Grace Period, the Registrar shall announce eir Arrival. This Announcement shall have the effect of setting that Player\'s kudos to twice the Tabla Rasa.
\n
\nIf a Player joins the game, but is neither subject to a Grace Period nor been a Player at any time since the last Turning of a New Parchment, then the Herald shall set eir Kudos to half the Tabla Rasa (rounded up).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38173,1677,405217,405538,'As soon as possible after the beginning ofReadiness is a Player\'s Grace Period, the Registrar shall announce stuck player switch with values unready and ready. A player may flip eir Arrival. This Announcement shall have the effect of setting that Player\'s kudos readiness to twice the Tabla Rasa. ready.
\n
\nIfWhenever a Player player registers who has not been registered within the previous year, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace Period beginning immediately and lasting for sixty days, not including Holidays. At the end of eir Grace Period, e becomes ready.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the beginning of a player\'s Grace Period, the Registrar shall announce eir arrival. This announcement shall have the effect of setting that player\'s kudos to twice the Tabla Rasa.
\n
\nIf a player joins the game, but is neither subject to a Grace Period nor has been a Player player at any time since the last Turning of a New Parchment, then the Herald shall set eir Kudos kudos to half the Tabla Rasa (rounded up).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38174,1677,405538,405653,'Readiness is a stuck player switch with values unready and ready. A player may flip eir readiness to ready.
\n
\nWhenever a player registers who has not been registered within the previous year, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace Period beginning immediately and lasting for sixty days, not including Holidays. At the end of eir Grace Period, e becomes ready.
\n
\n announcement shall have the effect of setting that player\'s kudos to twice grants the Tabla Rasa. player three free pending draws.
\n
\nIf a player joins the game, but is neither subject to a Grace Period nor has been a player at any time since the last Turning of a New Parchment, then the Herald shall set eir kudos to half the Tabla Rasa (rounded up).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38175,1678,404508,405018,'If an Interested a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was submitted by a Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor shall pay out to that Player an award of one Papyrus, over and above any other award that Player might also receive for that Proposal. This Rule takes precedence over Rules that would prevent this award. Papyrus if the Proposal was Interested, or 0.2 Papyri if the Proposal was Disinterested.
\n'),(38176,1678,405018,405167,' shall pay out to that Player an award of one Papyrus if the Proposal was Interested, or 0.2 Papyri if Proposor the Proposal was Disinterested. Boon of Prodigy.
\n'),(38177,1681,404589,405596,' the Ruleset ruleset known as the Short Logical Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each Rule rule is assigned to a Rule Category, category, and the Rules rules are grouped according to their Category. category. Within a Category, category, the ordering of Rules rules is decided by the Rulekeepor. All existing Rule Categories categories must be listed, even if no Rules rules are currently assigned to the Category. category.
\n
\n each Rule rule in the SLR must include: * The Rule Number * The Rule\'s Amendment Number * The Rule\'s Power * The Rule\'s Title * The Rule\'s text * Any include the rule\'s number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also include any annotations to the Rule rule required by Order order.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\n the Ruleset ruleset known as the Full Logical Ruleset (FLR). In this format, Rules rules are assigned to the same Category category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, as well as: * A as a brief description of each Category * Any category and any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record.
\n
\n the Ruleset ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38178,1681,405596,405655,' Rulekeepor. All existing categories must be listed, even if no rules are currently
\n
\nA new Rule is assigned to a category as the category. Rulekeepor sees fit. The Rulekeepor may, without 2 objections, move Rules between categories, change the name of a category, and add or remove empty categories.
\n
\nThe listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also include any annotations to the rule required by order.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThere 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, as well as a brief description of each category and any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38179,1681,405655,405733,' their category. Within a category, the ordering of rules is decided by the Rulekeepor. category.
\n
\nA new Rule isRules are assigned to a category as the Rulekeepor sees fit. The Rulekeepor may, without 2 objections, move Rules to, ordered within, or moved between categories, change the name of a category, and add categories are added, changed, or remove empty categories. categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\nThe listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also include any annotations to the rule required by order.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\n SLR, as well as a brief description of each category and any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\nWhenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeeper shall record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type of change, the date on which the change took effect, the mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38180,1681,405733,405759,'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.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\nThe listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also include any annotations to the rule required by order.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThere 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\n the Rulekeeper Rulekeepor shall record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type of change, the date on which the change took effect, the mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38181,1681,405759,405936,'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.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\n and text, and must also include any annotations to the rule required by order. text.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThere 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\nWhenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type of change, the date on which the change took effect, the mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38182,1681,405936,406108,'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.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\n rule\'s ID number, revision number, power, title, and text.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThere 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\nWhenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type of change, the date on which the change took effect, the mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38183,1681,406108,496696,'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.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\nThe listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID number, revision number, power, title, and text.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThere 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\n rule indicating the indicating:
\n
\na) The type of change, the change.
\n
\nb) The date on which the change took effect, the effect.
\n
\nc) The mechanism which that specified the change, and if change.
\n
\nd) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to then that proposal, its proposer, proposal\'s ID number, author, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal. co-author(s) (if any).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38184,1681,496696,497321,'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.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\nThe listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID number, revision number, power, title, and text.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThere 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\n is changed modified in any way, way (including a power or title change), the Rulekeepor shall record CAN cause it to amend itself by adding a historical annotation to the rule indicating: annotation, which MUST include:
\n
\na) The type of change.
\n
\nb) The date on which the change took effect.
\n
\nc) The mechanism that specified the change.
\n
\nd) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38185,1681,497321,497359,'ThereThe Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical Ruleset (SLR). ruleset. In this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\nThe listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID number, revision number, power, title, and text.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThereThe Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical Ruleset (FLR). ruleset. In this format, rules are assigned to the same category 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\nWhenever a rule is modified in any way (including a power or title change), the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by adding a historical annotation, which MUST include:
\n
\na) The type of change.
\n
\nb) The date on which the change took effect.
\n
\nc) The mechanism that specified the change.
\n
\nd) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38186,1681,497359,497389,'The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\n power, committee assignments (if any), title, and text.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThe Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\nWhenever a rule is modified in any way (including a power or title change), the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by adding a historical annotation, which MUST include:
\n
\na) The type of change.
\n
\nb) The date on which the change took effect.
\n
\nc) The mechanism that specified the change.
\n
\nd) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38187,1681,497389,497403,'The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nRules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.
\n
\nThe listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID number, revision number, power, committee assignments (if any), title, and text.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR.
\n
\nThe Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. 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.
\n
\nThe Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.
\n
\n is modified changed in any way (including a power or title change), way, the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by adding SHALL record a historical annotation, which MUST include: annotation to the rule indicating:
\n
\na) The type of change.
\n
\nb) The date on which the change took effect.
\n
\nc) The mechanism that specified the change.
\n
\nd) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38188,1686,404430,404696,'For each Office, the Rules may designate certain information to be part of that Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. All Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports shall also be known as Official Reports. All information which is part of an Officer\'s Official Report(s) shall be maintained by that Officer.
\n
\n publish that Report it during each Nomic Week, else e shall be Guilty of the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. Each Week; each Officer with a Monthly Report is required to publish that Report it during each Nomic Month, else e shall be Guilty of Month. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. The Infraction of Failure to Report may be detected and reported by the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy or the Speaker.
\n
\nIf an Officer with a Weekly Report fails to publish that Report during three consecutive Nomic Weeks, e commits the Class 10 Crime of Dereliction of Duty. If an Officer with a Monthly Report fails Failure to publish that Report during do so for three consecutive Nomic Months, e commits (Weeks/Months) is instead the Class 10 Crime Infraction of Dereliction of Duty. Any Duty; any Officer found Guilty guilty of Dereliction of Duty shall be immediately retired from Office. No player this Infraction is automatically retired. These Infractions may be found Guilty of Dereliction detected and reported by the Assistant Director of Duty more than once each quarter for any particular Office. Personnel and the Speaker.
\n'),(38189,1686,404696,404822,'For each Office, theThe Rules may designate certain information to be part of that an Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. All An Office\'s Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports shall also be known as constitute the Office\'s Official Reports. All Report. All information which that is part of an Officer\'s Office\'s Official Report(s) Report shall be maintained by that Officer. the corresponding officer.
\n
\nEach OfficerThe rules may specify conditions under which a player is marvy; that player is not marvy unless the rules explicitly state at least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied. As soon as possible after a player becomes marvy, the Speaker shall announce this fact. The only condition for marviness is membership in the Outer Cabinet.
\n
\nEach officer with a Weekly Report is required to must publish it during each Nomic Week; weekly; each Officer officer with a Monthly Report is required to must publish it during each Nomic Month. monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. Failure If an officer fails to do so for at least three consecutive Nomic (Weeks/Months) is instead reporting periods, e may be cited for either Failure to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty; any Officer found guilty Duty but not both. Any officer cited for Derelicition of this Infraction Duty is automatically immediately retired. These Infractions may be detected and reported by the The Assistant Director of Personnel and the Speaker. Speaker may report these Infractions.
\n'),(38190,1686,404822,405188,'The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.
\n
\n is marvy; mauve; that player is not marvy mauve unless the rules explicitly state at least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied. As soon as possible after a player becomes marvy, mauve, the Speaker shall announce this fact. The only condition for marviness mauveness is membership in the Outer Cabinet. being nicknamed Blob.
\n
\n for Derelicition Dereliction of Duty is immediately retired. removed from that office. The Assistant Director of Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.
\n'),(38191,1686,405188,405401,'The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.
\n
\nThe rules may specify conditions under which a player is mauve; that player is not mauve unless the rules explicitly state at least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied. As soon as possible after a player becomes mauve, the Speaker shall announce this fact. The only condition for mauveness is being nicknamed Blob.
\n
\n it weekly; each weekly unless the content of the report would substantially be the same as in the previously published report. In this case, a report must only be published within one week of the next substantial change to the report\'s content. Each officer with a Monthly Report must publish it monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. If an officer fails to do so for at least three consecutive reporting periods, e may be cited for either Failure to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty but not both. Any officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is immediately removed from that office. The Assistant Director of Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.
\n'),(38192,1686,405401,405432,'The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.
\n
\nThe rules may specify conditions under which a player is mauve; that player is not mauve unless the rules explicitly state at least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied. As soon as possible after a player becomes mauve, the Speaker shall announce this fact. The only condition for mauveness is being nicknamed Blob.
\n
\n report\'s content. Each content, but must at least be published once per month. Each officer with a Monthly Report must publish it monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. If an officer fails to do so for at least three consecutive reporting periods, e may be cited for either Failure to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty but not both. Any officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is immediately removed from that office. The Assistant Director of Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.
\n'),(38193,1686,405432,405507,' Weekly Report, Bi-Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly Reports, Bi-Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.
\n
\nThe rules may specify conditions under which a player is mauve; that player is not mauve unless the rules explicitly state at least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied. As soon as possible after a player becomes mauve, the Speaker shall announce this fact. The only condition for mauveness is being nicknamed Blob.
\n
\nEachEach officer with a Weekly Report must publish it weekly unless the content of the report would substantially be the same as in the previously published report. In this case, a report must only be published within one week of the next substantial change to the report\'s content, but must at least be published once per month. Each officer with a Bi-Weekly Report must publish it once every two weeks and each officer with a Monthly Report must publish it monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. If an officer fails to do so for at least three consecutive reporting periods, e may be cited for either Failure to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty but not both. Any officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is immediately removed from that office. The Assistant Director of Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.
\n'),(38194,1686,405507,405607,'The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an Office\'s Weekly Report, Bi-Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly Reports, Bi-Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.
\n
\n The Assistant Associate Director of Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.
\n'),(38195,1688,404399,405563,'Power is an Index. An Instrument isThe power of an entity with nonzero Power. The Power of is a given entity natural number, which is zero unless otherwise defined or modified according to procedures defined by the Rules. rules. An instrument is an entity with positive power.
\n'),(38196,1688,405563,405838,' a natural number, which is zero unless otherwise defined or modified according to procedures defined by the rules. An non-negative rational number. An instrument is an entity with positive power. power.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38197,1688,405838,496684,'The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number. An instrument is an entity with positive power.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n'),(38198,1688,496684,497409,'The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number. An instrument is an entity with positive power.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38199,1693,404571,404958,'If the a Judgement of a CFJ TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. The Board may rule that the original Judgement was either correct or incorrect. Judgement.
\n
\n a majority of the Justices find that the original Judgement was correct, then the Board\'s ruling of DISMISSED is that Appealed, the original Judgement was correct. In that case, Board shall not consider the original Judge truth or falsity of the CFJ shall retain eir Judicial Salary and the original CFJ; they shall only consider whether a Judgement has legal effect. of DISMISSED should have been delivered.
\n
\nIf a majority of the Justices find that the original Judgement was incorrect, then the Board\'s ruling is that the original Judgement was incorrect. In that case, the originalFor an Appelate Judge of assigned to the CFJ shall forfeit eir Judicial Salary. The Board may then act in one Appeal of three ways, provided that a majority Judgement, a Judgement is exactly one of the Justices agree: following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE, REASSIGN, or REMAND.
\n
\ni) Reversal of the Judgement. In this case, the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the Judgement being that which a majority of the Justices agree on. ii) Dismissal of the CFJ. The CFJ shall be considered dismissed. iii) Re-assignment of the CFJ. In this case, the original Judgement shall be ignored, and the CotC shall reassign the CFJ toWhen a new Judge in the same fashion as it was originally assigned; the original Judge will be considered Ineligible. The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason. is overturned:
\n
\nIfa) If a majority of the Justices find Appelate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the Judgement being that which a majority of the Appelate Judges agree on.
\n
\nb) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then the original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was incorrect, but no originally assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.
\n
\nc) If a majority of the Justices agree on what action Appelate Judges Judge REMAND, then the original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to take, the original Judge as if it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make the same Judgement for the same reason.
\n
\nd) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be re-assigned reassigned as described above.
\n'),(38200,1698,432237,496742,'It must always be possible to adopt Proposals withinIn the interest of safeguarding Agora\'s nomic-ness, if a 4 week period. Any change to the game state which gamestate would result in this condition becoming false otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any combinations of actions by players, then that change is cancelled canceled and does not take place, occur, any Rule rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38201,1712,404644,404695,'The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by Players.
\n
\nThe Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for.
\n
\n shall Auction a number of Indulgences calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the difference between the AICL and the IICL. If IICL minus the AICL is equal AICL, rounded down to or greater than the IICL, no auction shall be held. nearest integer. To calculate the difference, Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the start of the auction. However, if calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that number shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nTheIf the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall not auction any Indulgences that month.
\n
\nIn an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned. The In addition, the Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only Stems with only Acolytes may being allowed to bid.
\n
\nUpon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Indulgence Auction, the Herald shall pay out one Indulgence to the debtor of the satisfied debt.
\n'),(38202,1712,404695,404745,'The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by Players.
\n
\n paid for. for. The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer. To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that number shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\n shall not auction any a whole number of Indulgences that month. equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.
\n
\nIn an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned. In addition, the Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being allowed to bid.
\n
\nUpon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Indulgence Auction, the Herald shall pay out one Indulgence to the debtor of the satisfied debt.
\n'),(38203,1712,404745,404778,'The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by Players.
\n
\nThe Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer. To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that number shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nIf the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.
\n
\nIn an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned. In addition, the Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being allowed to bid.
\n
\nUpon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Indulgence Auction, the Herald shall pay out one Indulgence to the debtor of the satisfied debt.
\n'),(38204,1712,404778,404854,'The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by Players.
\n
\nThe Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer. To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that number shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nIf the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.
\n
\n the Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being allowed to bid.
\n'),(38205,1712,404854,404885,' total number Stain of Blots held by all Players.
\n
\nThe Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer. To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that number shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nIf the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.
\n
\nIn an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned. In addition, the Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being allowed to bid.
\n'),(38206,1712,404885,404923,'The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.
\n
\nThe Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer. To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that number shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nIf the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.
\n
\n Auctioned. In addition, the The Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being allowed to bid. Stems.
\n'),(38207,1712,404923,405005,'The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.
\n
\nThe Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\n the calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that number shall be allowed to stand. calculation.
\n
\nIf the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.
\n
\nIn an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n'),(38208,1712,405005,405055,'The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.
\n
\n given Nomic Agoran Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Agoran Month.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer. To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the calculation.
\n
\nIf the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.
\n
\nIn an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n'),(38209,1712,405055,405090,'The(a) The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is equal to the number of registered Players, Players plus the total Stain of all Players.
\n
\nThe(b) The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Agoran Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Agoran Month. either:
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer. To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other values(1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the calculation. prior Indulgence Auctions that have not yet concluded; or
\n
\nIf the(2) have been auctioned in prior Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of Auctions that month, auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences. have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or
\n
\nIn an Indulgence Auction held(3) have been Auctioned in accordance with this rule, prior Indulgence Auctions that have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning Bids have been paid, but the Indulgences have not been transferred to the Winning Bidders.
\n
\n(c) The Indulgence Surplus is the difference between the IICL and the AICL; if the AICL is greater than the IICL, the Indulgence Surplus is zero.
\n
\n(d) If the Indulgence Surplus is positive at the beginning of the month, the Herald shall as soon as possible auction off the surplus Indulgences. The items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus Indulgences; the number of items is equal to the Indulgence Surplus, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n
\n(e) The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\n(f) If the Indulgence Surplus is zero or negative at the beginning of the month, the Herald may still conduct an Indulgence auction, but only if e initiates it within one week after the beginning of the month. The items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences; the number of items is chosen by the Herald, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of half the MBIG, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be Auctioned. The the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n'),(38210,1712,405090,405096,'(a) The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is equal to the number of Players plus the total Stain of all Players.
\n
\n(b) The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which either:
\n
\n or
\n
\n(2) (2) have been auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or
\n
\n(3) (3) have been Auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning Bids have been paid, but the Indulgences have not been transferred to the Winning Bidders.
\n
\n(c) The Indulgence Surplus is the difference between the IICL and the AICL; if the AICL is greater than the IICL, the Indulgence Surplus is zero.
\n
\n(d) If the Indulgence Surplus is positive at the beginning of the month, the Herald shall as soon as possible auction off the surplus Indulgences. The items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences; the number of items is equal to the Indulgence Surplus, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n
\n(e) The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\n(f) If the Indulgence Surplus is zero or negative at the beginning of the month, the Herald may still conduct an Indulgence auction, but only if e initiates it within one week after the beginning of the month. The items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences; the number of items is chosen by the Herald, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of half the MBIG, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n'),(38211,1712,405096,405135,'(a) The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is equal to the number of Players plus the total Stain of all Players.
\n
\n(b) The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank which either:
\n
\n(1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in prior Indulgence Auctions that have not yet concluded; or (2) have been auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or (3) have been Auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning Bids have been paid, but the Indulgences have not been transferred to the Winning Bidders.
\n
\n(c) The Indulgence Surplus is the difference between the IICL and the AICL; if the AICL is greater than the IICL, the Indulgence Surplus is zero.
\n
\n(d) If the Indulgence Surplus is positive at the beginning of the month, the Herald shall as soon as possible auction off the surplus Indulgences. The items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences; the number of items is equal to the Indulgence Surplus, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n
\n(e) The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same Nomic Month.
\n
\n is zero or negative less than one at the beginning of the month, the Herald may still conduct an Indulgence auction, but only if e initiates it within one week after the beginning of the month. The items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences; the number of items is chosen by the Herald, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of half the MBIG, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n'),(38212,1714,404645,404886,'A Lawless Player is Lawless if a Player with more than 20 Blots stain eir record. Blots.
\n
\nAny Player may at any time publicly allege that another Player is Lawless. If the allegation is incorrect, the Player who made the allegation commits the Class 15 Crime of Persecution. Otherwise, the following events occur in order:
\n
\n(i) if the Lawless Player is the Speaker, the Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the Lawless Player ceases to be Speaker;
\n
\n(ii) the Lawless Player is removed from any Offices e holds; and
\n
\n(iii) the Lawless Player is deregistered.
\n
\nIf a Player is deregistered according to the provisions of this Rule, e may not register again until a month has passed from eir deregistration.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would prohibit a Lawless Player from being deregistered.
\n
\n
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(38213,1714,404886,405531,'A Lawless Player player is a Player with lawless while e has more than 20 Blots. blots.
\n
\nAny Player may at any time publicly allege that another PlayerA notice of lawlessness is Lawless. If the an allegation by one player (the Inquisitor) that a specified player (the Scofflaw) is incorrect, lawless. As soon as possible after the Player who made the allegation commits the Class 15 Crime publication of Persecution. Otherwise, such a notice, the Herald shall publicly confirm or deny the following events occur in order: allegation.
\n
\n(i) ifIf the Lawless Player is Herald confirms the Speaker, allegation, then the Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the Lawless Player ceases to be Speaker; following events occur in order:
\n
\n(ii) the Lawless Player(a) if the Scofflaw is removed from any Offices the Speaker, e holds; and ceases to be Speaker;
\n
\n(iii) the Lawless Player(b) the Scofflaw is deregistered. removed from any offices e holds; and
\n
\nIf a Player is deregistered according to(c) the provisions of this Rule, e may not register again until a month has passed from eir deregistration. Scofflaw is deregistered.
\n
\nThis RuleIf the Herald denies the allegation, then the Inquisitor should be punished. You know what to do.
\n
\nIf a player is deregistered according to the provisions of this rule, e may not register again until a month has passed from eir deregistration.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any Rule that would prohibit a Lawless Player lawless player from being deregistered.
\n
\n
\n
\nMar. 30 2000
\n'),(38214,1724,404473,405067,'A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met:
\n
\ni) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal,
\n
\nii) The Proposal is Interested.
\n
\nAn Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.
\n
\n be detected and reported by any Player.
\n
\nThe Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed.
\n'),(38215,1724,405067,405483,' if all the following conditions are met:
\n
\ni) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal,
\n
\nii) The Proposal is Interested. Proposal.
\n
\nAn Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.
\n
\nThe Promotor may distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it becomes Distributable, and e is required to do so within five days. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Lack of Urgency, which may be reported by any Player.
\n
\nThe Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed.
\n'),(38216,1726,404486,404687,' is Executed submitted by submitting it to the Assessor. A Guillotine Application may specify when it is to take effect; if it does not do so, or specifies a time prior to its Execution, submission, it takes effect when Executed. submitted. For a Guillotine Application to take effect:
\n
\n* it must state that it is a Guillotine Application;
\n
\n* it must clearly identify exactly one Proposal to which it applies;
\n
\n* that Proposal\'s Voting Period must be in progress;
\n
\n* the ratio of the number of Active Senators whose signatures it bears to the number of Active Senators whose signatures it does not bear must exceed the Adoption Index of the Proposal; and
\n
\n* it must bear the signatures of at least two Senators.
\n
\nWhen a Guillotine Application takes effect, the Voting Period of the Proposal to which it applies immediately ends. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules governing the Voting Period of Proposals.
\n'),(38217,1727,497237,404394,'____ _ /| 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 \\ \\_ \\ ,__/ / ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as close as practical to Agora\'s Birthday (June 30 at 00:04:30 GMT+1200), the Payroll Clerk shall transfer 50 Stems from the Bank to each Player;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Payroll Clerk shall transfer 25 Stems from the Bank to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognizes Agora\'s Birthday; but no Player shall receive more than one such transfer during each year\'s Birthday Celebration.
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary may select up to three Contests, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have as their purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and which Contests, in the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to the Contestmaster of each such Contest 100 Stems;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge, Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player Execute an Application to Submit an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.
\n'),(38218,1727,404394,404686,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as close as practical to Agora\'s Birthday (June 30 at 00:04:30 GMT+1200), the Payroll Clerk shall transfer 50 Stems from the Bank to each Player;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Payroll Clerk shall transfer 25 Stems from the Bank to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognizes Agora\'s Birthday; but no Player shall receive more than one such transfer during each year\'s Birthday Celebration.
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary may select up to three Contests, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have as their purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and which Contests, in the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to the Contestmaster of each such Contest 100 Stems;
\n
\n Player Execute submit an Application to Submit an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.
\n'),(38219,1727,404686,405013,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;
\n
\n transfer 50 10 Stems from the Bank to each Player;
\n
\n transfer 25 5 Stems from the Bank to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognizes Agora\'s Birthday; but no Player shall receive more than one such transfer during each year\'s Birthday Celebration.
\n
\n Contest 100 20 Stems;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge, Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.
\n'),(38220,1727,405013,405023,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;
\n
\n as close soon as practical to possible after the beginning of Agora\'s Birthday (June 30 at 00:04:30 GMT+1200), Birthday, the Payroll Clerk Registrar shall transfer pay out 10 Stems from the Bank to each Player;
\n
\n RESOLVED that that, as soon as possible after the Payroll Clerk end of Agora\'s Birthday, the Speaker shall transfer pay out 5 Stems from the Bank to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognizes recognized Agora\'s Birthday; but no Player shall receive more than one such transfer during each year\'s Birthday Celebration. Birthday;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary may select up to three Contests, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have as their purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and which Contests, in the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to the Contestmaster of each such Contest 20 Stems;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge, Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.
\n'),(38221,1727,405023,405148,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;
\n
\n the beginning end of Agora\'s Birthday, the Registrar Herald shall pay out 10 Stems award the boon of celebration to each Player; Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognized Agora\'s Birthday;
\n
\n RESOLVED that, as soon as possible after the end of Agora\'s Birthday, the Speaker shall pay out 5 Stems to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognized Agora\'s Birthday;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary Herald may select up to three Contests, one Contest, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have has as their its purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and which Contests, in Birthday. Within the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to month following Agora\'s Birthday, that Contest may award its Members the Patent Title Nth Anniversary Ribbon, where N is the Contestmaster number of each such Contest 20 Stems; years of Agora\'s existence;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge, Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.
\n'),(38222,1727,405148,405482,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as soon as possible after the end of Agora\'s Birthday, the Herald shall award the boon of celebration to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognized Agora\'s Birthday;
\n
\n one Contest, Contract, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which has as its purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday. Within the month following Agora\'s Birthday, that Contest Contract may award its Members the Patent Title Nth Anniversary Ribbon, where N is the number of years of Agora\'s existence;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge, Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.
\n'),(38223,1727,405482,405750,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n by First Speaker FIRST SPEAKER Michael Norrish, which read, in part,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\n its official name OFFICAL NAME of Agora,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\n each year;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as soon as possible after the end of Agora\'s Birthday, the Herald shall award the boon of celebration to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognized Agora\'s Birthday;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Herald may select one Contract, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which has as its purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday. Within the month following Agora\'s Birthday, that Contract may award its Members the Patent Title Nth Anniversary Ribbon, where N is the number of years of Agora\'s existence;
\n
\nBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge, Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects. year.
\n'),(38224,1727,405750,405756,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\n its OFFICAL OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.
\n'),(38225,1727,405756,497288,'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;
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\n"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."
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd 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,
\n
\nAnd WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s founding,
\n
\nBE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.
\n
\nBE 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.
\n'),(38226,1728,404714,404450,'An action is Dependent (or may be performed Dependently) if and only if it is an Action With N Objections or an Action With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer not greater than five. The phrase `Without Objection\' is synonymous with `Without 1 Objection\', and the phrase `With Support\' is synonymous with `With 1 Supporter\'. The Rules may name specific actions as Dependent Actions.
\n
\nA Player may, in a Public Forum, unambiguously describe a particular Dependent Action which e is authorised by the Rules to perform Dependently, and announce eir intent to perform it. That Player may perform that action if and only if:
\n
\n(a) e announced eir intent at most fourteen days before attempting to perform it, and, in the case of Actions Without N Objections, at least four days before attempting to perform it;
\n
\n(b) the authorising Rule explicitly indicates who may perform the action Dependently;
\n
\n(c) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this Rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\n action, with reasons, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections; or
\n
\n(2) at least N Players other than the Player attempting to make the action have publicly posted Support for the performance of the action, if the action is to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(d) e publicly announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nProperties which would be changed by a Dependent Action do not occur until announced as in (d).
\n
\nThe specification in the Rules that an action may be performed Dependently in no way prohibits performing that same action if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nRules calling for Dependent Actions may restrict the eligibility of Players to Support or Object to that specific Action.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38227,1728,404450,404897,' is Dependent (or dependent, or may be performed Dependently) dependently, if and only if it is an Action With Without N Objections or an Action With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer not greater than five. integer. The phrase `Without Objection\' "Without Objection" is synonymous with `Without "Without 1 Objection\', Objection", and the phrase `With Support\' "With Support" is synonymous with `With "With 1 Supporter\'. The Rules may name specific actions as Dependent Actions. Supporter".
\n
\nA Player may, in a Public Forum, unambiguously describe a particular Dependent Action which e is authorised by the Rules to perform Dependently, and player may publicly announce eir intent to perform it. That Player an unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform that a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and only if:
\n
\n(a) e announced eir intent at most no more than fourteen days before attempting to perform it, and, in have passed since the case announcement of Actions Without N Objections, at least four days before attempting intent to perform it; the action;
\n
\n(b) the authorising Rule explicitly indicates who may perform if the action Dependently; to be performed is an Action Without N Objections, at least four days have passed since the announcement made under (a) of this rule;
\n
\n(c) during either the time between player who attempts to perform the announcement action is the player who made the announcement under (a) of this Rule and the attempt to perform the action, rule, or
\n
\n(1) fewer than N Players have publicly posted Objections to the player who made the performance announcement under (a) of the action, with reasons, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections; or this rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and
\n
\n(2) at least N Players other than the Player attempting the player who attempts to make perform the action have publicly posted Support for is the performance holder of the action, if the action is that position when e attempts to be performed With N Supporters; and perform the action;
\n
\n(d) e publicly announces that e performs the rules explicitly authorise the described action. player to perform the action dependently;
\n
\nProperties which would be changed by a Dependent Action do not occur until announced as in (d).(e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\nThe specification in(1) if the Rules that an action may is to be performed Dependently in no way prohibits performing that same action if doing so would otherwise be permissible. Without N Objections, fewer than N players have publicly posted objections to the performance of the action; or
\n
\nRules calling(2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at least N players other than the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly posted support for the performance of the action;
\n
\n(f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(g) e announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nA dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).
\n
\nA player who posts an objection to the performance of an action may publicly retract eir objection. If e does so, e shall be deemed not have posted an objection to the performance of that action for Dependent Actions the purposes of (e)(1) of this rule.
\n
\nThe specification in the rules that an action may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nA rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may restrict the eligibility of Players players to Support support or Object object to that specific Action. action.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38228,1728,404897,405132,' a positive nonnegative integer. The phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection", and the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
\n
\nA player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and only if:
\n
\n(a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the announcement of intent to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N Objections, at least four days have passed since the announcement made under (a) of this rule;
\n
\n(c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or
\n
\n(1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and
\n
\n(2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action;
\n
\n(d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the action dependently;
\n
\n(e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\n(1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, fewer than N players have publicly posted objections to the performance of the action; or
\n
\n(2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at least N players other than the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly posted support for the performance of the action;
\n
\n(f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(g) e announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nA dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).
\n
\nA player who posts an objection to the performance of an action may publicly retract eir objection. If e does so, e shall be deemed not have posted an objection to the performance of that action for the purposes of (e)(1) of this rule.
\n
\nThe specification in the rules that an action may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nA rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38229,1728,405132,405809,'An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection", and the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
\n
\nA player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and only if:
\n
\n(a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the announcement of intent to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N Objections, at least four days have passed since the announcement made under (a) of this rule;
\n
\n(c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or
\n
\n(1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and
\n
\n(2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action;
\n
\n(d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the action dependently;
\n
\n(e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\n objections (and not publicly retracted eir objections) to the performance of the action; or
\n
\n(2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at least N players other than the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly posted support for the performance of the action;
\n
\n(f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(g) e announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nA dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).
\n
\nA player who posts an objection to the performance of an action may publicly retract eir objection. If e does so, e shall be deemed not have posted an objection to the performance of that action for the purposes of (e)(1) of this rule.
\n
\nThe specification in the rules that an action may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nA rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38230,1728,405809,405879,'An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection", and the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
\n
\nA player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and only if:
\n
\n(a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the announcement of intent to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N Objections, at least four days have passed since the announcement made under (a) of this rule;
\n
\n(c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or
\n
\n(1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and
\n
\n(2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action;
\n
\n(d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the action dependently;
\n
\n(e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\n players who are natural persons have publicly posted objections (and not publicly retracted eir objections) to the performance of the action; or
\n
\n players who are natural persons other than the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly posted support for the performance of the action;
\n
\n(f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(g) e announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nA dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).
\n
\nThe specification in the rules that an action may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nA rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38231,1728,405879,405924,'An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection", and the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
\n
\nA player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and only if:
\n
\n(a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the announcement of intent to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N Objections, at least four days have passed since the announcement made under (a) of this rule;
\n
\n(c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or
\n
\n(1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and
\n
\n(2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action;
\n
\n(d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the action dependently;
\n
\n(e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\n action; or and
\n
\n(2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at least N players who are natural persons other than the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly posted support for the performance of the action;
\n
\n(f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(g) e announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nA dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).
\n
\nThe specification in the rules that an action may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nA rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38232,1728,405924,405941,'An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection", and the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
\n
\nA player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and only if:
\n
\n(a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the announcement of intent to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N Objections, at least four days have passed since the announcement made under (a) of this rule;
\n
\n(c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or
\n
\n(1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and
\n
\n(2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action;
\n
\n(d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the action dependently;
\n
\n(e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\n N first-class players who are natural persons have publicly posted objections (and not publicly retracted eir objections) to the performance of the action; and
\n
\n N first-class players who are natural persons other than the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly posted support for the performance of the action;
\n
\n(f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(g) e announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nA dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).
\n
\nThe specification in the rules that an action may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nA rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38233,1728,405941,406124,'An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N Supporters, where N is announcement of intent to perform a nonnegative integer. The phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection", dependent action, unambiguously describing the action and method of dependent action, initiates the Agoran decision of whether to approve the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter". action. For this decision:
\n
\nA player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and only if:(a) The vote collector is the announcer.
\n
\n(a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the announcement of intent to perform the action;(b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.
\n
\n(b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N Objections, at least four(c) The voting period ends after fourteen days have passed since the announcement made under (a) of this rule; or immediately before it is resolved, whichever comes first.
\n
\n(c) either(d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active first-class players at the player who attempts to perform start of the action is voting period, except for the player who made vote collector, and any entities disqualified by the announcement under (a) of this rule, or rule specifying that the action can be performed dependently.
\n
\n(1) the player who made the announcement under (a)(e) The voting limit of this rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and each eligible voter is one.
\n
\n(2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the holder(f) The vote collector of that position when e attempts to perform the action; 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.
\n
\n(d) the rules explicitly authorise(g) If the player to perform outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs the action dependently; upon resolving the decision.
\n
\n(e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of this rule and the attempt to perform the action,
\n
\n(1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, fewer than N first-class players have publicly posted objections (and not publicly retracted eir objections) to the performance of the action; and
\n
\n(2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at least N first-class players other than the player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly posted support for the performance of the action;
\n
\n(f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and
\n
\n(g) e announces that e performs the described action.
\n
\nA dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).
\n
\nTheThe specification in the rules that an action may can be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\nA rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action. permissible.
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38234,1728,406124,432214,'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:
\n
\n(a) The vote collector is the announcer.
\n
\n(b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.
\n
\n(c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately before it is resolved, whichever comes first.
\n
\n for the vote collector, and any entities disqualified by the rule specifying that the action can be performed dependently.
\n
\n(e) The voting limit of each eligible voter is one.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs the action upon resolving the decision.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38235,1728,432214,432332,'An announcement of intent toA player CAN perform a dependent action, unambiguously describing the an action and method of dependently (a dependent action, initiates action) if and only if the Agoran decision of whether Rules explicitly authorize the player to approve perform the action by one of the action. For this decision: following methods:
\n
\n(a) The vote collector- Without N Objections, where N is the announcer. a nonnegative integer; - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1, with a minimum of 1.0.
\n
\n(b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.The phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection"; the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter"; the phrase "With Agoran Consent" is synonymous with "With 1.0 Agoran Consent".
\n
\n(c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately before it is resolved, whichever comes first.A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so, unambiguously describing both the action and the method, including the required value for N. A player (the performer) CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action by announcement, if and only if all of the following are true:
\n
\n(d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active first-class players at the start of(a) the voting period, except for any entities disqualified by time elapsed since the rule specifying that announcement of intent is no more than fourteen days, and (if the action can is to be performed dependently. Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four days;
\n
\n(e) The voting limit(b) either the performer was the initiator, or the initiator was authorized to perform the action by virtue of each eligible voter holding a rules-defined position and the performer is one. the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action; and
\n
\n(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.(c) At the time the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as described elsewhere.
\n
\n(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performsThe specification in the rules that an action upon resolving the decision. may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38236,1728,432332,496715,'A player CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action) if and only if the Rules explicitly authorize the player to perform the action by one of the following methods:
\n
\n- Without N Objections, where N is a nonnegative integer; - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1, with a minimum of 1.0.
\n
\nThe phrase "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection"; the phrase "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter"; the phrase "With Agoran Consent" is synonymous with "With 1.0 Agoran Consent".
\n
\nA player authorized to perform a dependent action (the initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so, unambiguously describing both the action and the method, including the required value for N. A player (the performer) CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action by announcement, if and only if all of the following are true:
\n
\n(a) the time elapsed since the announcement of intent is no more than fourteen days, and (if the action is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four days;
\n
\n the action depends on support and the performer has supported the action and the rule allowing the action to be performed dependently does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it, or the initiator was authorized to perform the action by virtue of holding a rules-defined position and the performer is the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action; and
\n
\n(c) At the time the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as described elsewhere.
\n
\nThe specification in the rules that an action may be performed dependently does not prohibit performing that action independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38237,1728,496715,496903,'A player person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action) by announcement if and only if the Rules explicitly authorize the player to perform the action by one all of the following methods: are true:
\n
\n- Without N Objections, where N is a nonnegative integer; - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiplea) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the action by at least one of 0.1, with a minimum of 1.0. the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified):
\n
\nThe phrase "Without Objection"1) Without N Objections, where N is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection"; the phrase "With Support" a positive integer. 2) With N Supporters, where N is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter"; the phrase "With a positive integer. 3) With N Agoran Consent" Consent, where N is synonymous an integer multiple of 0.1 with "With 1.0 Agoran Consent". a minimum of 1.
\n
\nA player authorized to perform a dependent actionb) A person (the initiator) CAN publicly announce eir announced intent to do so, perform the action, unambiguously describing both specifying the action and method (including the method, including the required value for N. A player (the performer) CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent action by announcement, if and only if all of N), at most fourteen days earlier, and (if the following are true: action depends on objections) at least four days earlier.
\n
\n(a) the time elapsed since the announcementc) At least one of intent is no more than fourteen days, and (if the action following is to be performed Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four days; true:
\n
\n(b) either the performer was the initiator, or the action depends on support and the performer has supported the action and the rule allowing the action to be performed dependently does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it, or the initiator was authorized to perform the action by virtue of holding a rules-defined position and the1) The performer is the holder of that position when e attempts to perform the action; and initiator.
\n
\n(c) At the time2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the announced intent, as described elsewhere. performer.
\n
\nThe specification in3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the rules that an action may be performed dependently depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing that it.
\n
\nd) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.
\n
\nA dependent action independently if doing so would otherwise CAN be permissible. performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38238,1728,496903,496935,'A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the following are true:
\n
\na) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the action by at least one of the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified):
\n
\n1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer. 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.
\n
\n unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method (including the value of N), at most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least four days earlier.
\n
\nc) At least one of the following is true:
\n
\n1) The performer is the initiator.
\n
\n2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer.
\n
\n3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
\n
\nd) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.
\n
\nA dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38239,1728,496935,497310,'A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the following are true:
\n
\n by at least a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified):
\n
\n1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer. 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.
\n
\n and method method(s) (including the value of N), N for each method), at most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least four days earlier.
\n
\nc) At least one of the following is true:
\n
\n1) The performer is the initiator.
\n
\n2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer.
\n
\n3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
\n
\nd) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.
\n
\nA dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38240,1728,497310,497378,'A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the following are true:
\n
\na) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified):
\n
\n1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer. 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.
\n
\nb) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least four days earlier.
\n
\nc) At least one of the following is true:
\n
\n1) The performer is the initiator.
\n
\n2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer.
\n
\n3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
\n
\nd) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.
\n
\nA dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules.
\n
\nA person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above requirements are otherwise met, and that the effects of that action are restricted to altering entities and/or attributes whose existence depends on that contract.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38241,1728,497378,496956,'A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the following are true:
\n
\n by a set of at least one or more of the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified):
\n
\n1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer. 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.
\n
\n and method(s) method (including the value of N for each method), N), at most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least four days earlier.
\n
\nc) At least one of the following is true:
\n
\n1) The performer is the initiator.
\n
\n2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer.
\n
\n3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
\n
\nd) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.
\n
\nA dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules.
\n
\nA person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above requirements are otherwise met, and that the effects of that action are restricted to altering entities and/or attributes whose existence depends on that contract.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed)
\n'),(38242,1729,404493,404899,'An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule letter. (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not better.)
\n
\nFor such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended: there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been bended. Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor. The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and professor.
\n
\nAnd should a Player split eir votes \'tween FOR and AGAINST like crazy, E will annoy Assessors (who are known for being lazy) So should eir votes cast differ from each other, this Rule\'s broke, With the breaker being the voting Player, as sure as if e\'d spoke.
\n
\nAnd should such a Proposal\'s Voting Period begin, but no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win.
\n'),(38243,1742,404563,405258,' the Rules. If rules. If such an agreement is subsequently broken, any Player player party to that agreement may then call a CFJ alleging that the agreement has been broken. If If the Judge judge of such a CFJ finds that the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding under the Rules rules, and that the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may Order order the breaching party to: (1) transfer Property to the other party or parties to remedy the damages from the breach, (2) perform according to the agreement, or (3) perform such other substitute acts as that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement. E agreement; e may further Order order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice.
\n
\n this Rule rule shall be construed so as to impair the enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate another agreement.
\n
\nAIf a CFJ alleging that an agreement has been broken is called by anyone who is not party to that agreement agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed.
\n'),(38244,1742,405258,405723,' be binding under the rules. If such an agreement is subsequently broken, any player party to that agreement may then call a CFJ alleging that the agreement has been broken. If the judge of such a CFJ finds binding; i.e. that the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding under the rules, and that the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may order the breaching party to perform according to the agreement, or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement; e may further order the other they become parties of to the agreement and agree to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice. bound by the agreement.
\n
\nNothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the enforcement ofA CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which requires the Caller is the Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a Player to violate another agreement. General CFJ.
\n
\nIf the judge of a Civil CFJ alleging finds that an the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that the agreement has in fact been broken broken, then e may do any or all of the following:
\n
\n(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement;
\n
\n(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice;
\n
\n(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for the type of breach.
\n
\nIf a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. dismissed. A Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall be dismissed.
\n
\nNothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate another agreement.
\n'),(38245,1742,405723,405912,'PlayersPersons may make agreements among themselves with the intention that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.
\n
\nA CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.
\n
\nIf the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all of the following:
\n
\n(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement;
\n
\n(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice;
\n
\n(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for the type of breach.
\n
\nIf a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall be dismissed.
\n
\nNothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate another agreement.
\n'),(38246,1742,405912,405943,'Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.
\n
\nA CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.
\n
\nIf the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all of the following:
\n
\n(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement;
\n
\n(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice;
\n
\n(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for the type of breach.
\n
\nIf a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. AA Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall be dismissed.
\n
\nNothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate another agreement.
\n'),(38247,1742,405943,405969,'Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.
\n
\nA CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.
\n
\nIf the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all of the following:
\n
\n(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement;
\n
\n(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice;
\n
\n(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for the type of breach.
\n
\nA Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall be dismissed.
\n
\n a Player person to violate another agreement.
\n'),(38248,1742,405969,405985,'Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.
\n
\n (the Defendant) defendant) has broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller caller is the Plaintiff. A plaintiff.
\n
\nThe defendant of a Civil CFJ that is automatically barred from judging it. The plaintiff may bar one other player when e submits the CFJ, but is not otherwise at that time permitted or able to bar any players from judging the CFJ, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. The defendant may bar one other player from judging, any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge.
\n
\nAny evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the defendant of a Civil CFJ with the clear intent of being part of a defense, any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge, will become part of the material of that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall as soon as possible send a copy of the CFJ to the defendant and inform the defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging. The CotC is prohibited from assigning a Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ until one week has passed since e notified the defendant of this, and is not obliged to assign a Trial Judge during this time, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. Starting from one week after the CotC has notified the defendant, the CotC is obliged to assign a General CFJ. Trial Judge as soon as possible, and this assignment shall in all other respects be governed by the usual rules for assignment of judges.
\n
\nIf the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all of the following:
\n
\n(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement;
\n
\n(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice;
\n
\n(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for the type of breach.
\n
\nA Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall be dismissed.
\n
\nNothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the enforcement of an agreement which requires a person to violate another agreement.
\n'),(38249,1742,405985,406079,'PersonsAny group of two or more persons may make agreements an agreement among themselves with the intention that such agreements will it be binding; i.e. that they become parties to binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement and agree to is known as a contract. A contract may be bound 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 agreement. number of parties to it falls below two.
\n
\nA CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the defendant) has broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the caller is the plaintiff.
\n
\nThe defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. The plaintiff may bar one other player when e submits the CFJ, but is not otherwise at that time permitted or able to bar any players from judging the CFJ, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. The defendant may bar one other player from judging, any time before the CFJ is assignedParties to a judge.
\n
\nAny evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC contract governed by the defendant of a Civil CFJ rules SHALL act in accordance with the clear intent of being part of a defense, any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge, will become part of the material of that CFJ.
\n
\nWhen a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall as soon as possible send a copy of the CFJ to the defendant and inform the defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging. The CotC is prohibited from assigning a Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ until one week has passed since e notified the defendant of this, and contract. This obligation is not obliged to assign a Trial Judge during this time, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. Starting from one week after the CotC has notified the defendant, the CotC is obliged to assign a Trial Judge as soon as possible, and this assignment shall in all other respects be governed impaired by contradiction between the usual rules for assignment of judges.
\n
\nIf the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement be binding, contract and that the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all of the following:
\n
\n(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the interests of the agreement;
\n
\n(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice;
\n
\n(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties contract, or actions be applied to the defendant, if and only if between the agreement in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for the type of breach.
\n
\nA Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple independent breaches of contract, is improperly made contract and shall be dismissed.
\n
\nNothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the enforcement of an agreement which requires a person to violate another agreement. rules.
\n'),(38250,1742,406079,406295,'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 two.
\n
\nParties 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.
\n
\nA public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such. Any other contract is private.
\n'),(38251,1742,406295,406515,' 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.
\n
\nParties 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.
\n
\nA public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such. Any other contract is private.
\n'),(38252,1742,406515,406584,'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.
\n
\nParties 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.
\n
\nA public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such. Any other contract is private.
\n'),(38253,1742,406584,432299,'Any person or group of two or more persons may make create 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.
\n
\nParties 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.
\n'),(38254,1742,432299,432303,'Any personContracts are binding agreements governed by the rules. Any agreement made by one or group of more persons may create an agreement with the intention that it be binding upon on them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement rules 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 (unless 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. would automatically terminate as a contract).
\n
\nParties to aA contract governed by automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below the number of parties the rules require for the contract. If other rules do not specify such a number for a contract, then a contract requires at least two parties.
\n
\nParties to a contract 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.
\n'),(38255,1742,432303,496896,' the rules. Any agreement made by one or more persons with the intention that it be binding on them and governed by the rules is a contract (unless it would automatically terminate as a contract). rules.
\n
\nAEach contract automatically terminates if the requires a certain number of parties to it falls below (two if not otherwise specified by the number of parties rules). Any agreement made by one or more persons, with the rules require for intention that it be binding on them and governed by the contract. If other rules do not specify such a number for a contract, then rules, becomes a contract requires when it comes to have at least two the required number of parties, and terminates when it comes to have less than the required number of parties.
\n
\nParties to a contract 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.
\n
\nAs it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a manner of equity, if a player is found GUILTY of violating this Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract that has never been a partnership, the only appropriate sentence is DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with respect to a previously-imposed Equity judgement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(38256,1742,496896,497442,'Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.
\n
\nEach contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it comes to have less than the required number of parties.
\n
\nParties to a contract 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.
\n
\nAs it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a manner of equity, if a player is found GUILTY of violating this Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract that has never been a partnership, the only appropriate sentence is DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with respect to a previously-imposed Equity judgement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n20082008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38257,1747,404646,404887,'The Clerk of the Courts has the power to Pardon Fugitives from Justice that have been deregistered for Lawlessness. The Clerk may not exercise this power more than once per Nomic month, and may not Pardon the same person twice in a given term of Office (although, if re-elected later, e may again Pardon that person). The Clerk of the Courts Pardons a Fugitive from Justice by publicly announcing e is doing so. Then the following events shall occur:
\n
\n the Blots staining the Fugitive\'s record Blots as required to reduce the number of Blots eir Stain to one less than the threshold for Lawlessness Lawlessness, and notify the Herald of this action.
\n
\nii) After the above step has been completed, the Fugitive may reregister as a Player.
\n
\niii) The Pardoned Player shall then publish a Formal Apology for eir Lawlessness. The CotC may include a list of up to ten Prescribed Words in eir Pardon.
\n
\niv) For three months after being Pardoned, the Pardoned Player may only use Indulgences to expunge Blots from eir record and may not transfer any Indulgences for any other purpose.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule governing Lawlessness, or when a deregistered Player may reregister.
\n'),(38258,1747,404887,405056,' per Nomic Agoran month, and may not Pardon the same person twice in a given term of Office (although, if re-elected later, e may again Pardon that person). The Clerk of the Courts Pardons a Fugitive from Justice by publicly announcing e is doing so. Then the following events shall occur:
\n
\ni) The Clerk of the Courts shall expunge as many of the Fugitive\'s Blots as required to reduce eir Stain to one less than the threshold for Lawlessness, and notify the Herald of this action.
\n
\nii) After the above step has been completed, the Fugitive may reregister as a Player.
\n
\niii) The Pardoned Player shall then publish a Formal Apology for eir Lawlessness. The CotC may include a list of up to ten Prescribed Words in eir Pardon.
\n
\niv) For three months after being Pardoned, the Pardoned Player may only use Indulgences to expunge Blots from eir record and may not transfer any Indulgences for any other purpose.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule governing Lawlessness, or when a deregistered Player may reregister.
\n'),(38259,1747,405056,405182,'The Clerk of the Courts has the power to Pardon Fugitives from Justice that have been deregistered for Lawlessness. The Clerk may not exercise this power more than once per Agoran month, and may not Pardon the same person twice in a given term of Office (although, if re-elected later, e may again Pardon that person). The Clerk of the Courts Pardons a Fugitive from Justice by publicly announcing e is doing so. Then the following events shall occur:
\n
\ni) The Clerk of the Courts shall expunge as many of the Fugitive\'s Blots as required to reduce eir Stain to one less than the threshold for Lawlessness, and notify the Herald of this action.
\n
\nii) After the above step has been completed, the Fugitive may reregister as a Player.
\n
\niii) The Pardoned Player shall then publish a Formal Apology for eir Lawlessness. The CotC may include a list of up to ten Prescribed Words in eir Pardon.
\n
\n may only use Indulgences to expunge not perform any Progressive Actions except expunging Blots from eir record and may not transfer any Indulgences for any other purpose. record, unless e is Immaculate.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over any Rule governing Lawlessness, or when a deregistered Player may reregister.
\n'),(38260,1750,404406,496718,'In each year, theThe first Nomic Week falling Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February shall be designated "Read is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week". Week.
\n'),(38261,1750,496718,497360,' is known as Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to During this time, Agorans SHOULD read the ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week. ruleset.
\n'),(38262,1755,404425,404784,'WhenWhenever a player becomes deregistered or a Zombie, is deregistered, e ceases to be a candidate, officer, judge, or in general to occupy any role or position to which a Rule assigns the rules assign any duties or powers. No one who is not registered, or who is a Zombie, registered may occupy such a role or position. This rule takes precedence over position, unless at least one of the rules which would prevent em from ceasing to occupy such a defining the role or position. position explicitly indicate it may be occupied by a nonplayer.
\n
\nThe foregoing paragraphBearing a Patent Title shall not apply be deemed to the Bearing of Patent Titles, or any position which a Rule specifically says may be held by occupying a non-Player role or Zombie, nor position.
\n
\nThis rule shall it not act to prevent a non-Player or Zombie nonplayer from registering, calling CFJs, for judgement, or otherwise doing things that non-Players and Zombies nonplayers are generally able to do.
\n'),(38263,1758,404440,405508,' the Assistant Associate Director of Personnel may declare, Without Objection, that that Player holds that Office in perpetuity. The Player then holds the Office in perpetuity.
\n
\nThe Term of Service of an Office held in perpetuity shall never expire, and a Player holding an Office in perpetuity continues to hold the Office in perpetuity while e holds the Office. If a Player holding an Office in perpetuity delegates the Office to another Player, and e is still the Electee to the Office at the end of the Period of Delegation, then e resumes holding the Office in perpetuity.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over other Rules defining the expiry of an Office\'s Term of Service.
\n'),(38264,1764,404492,405504,'There are three classes of Issues: Proposals, Elections, and Referenda.
\n
\n(a) There are three possible modes of voting on Issues: Public, Private and Unrestricted. If not otherwise defined, the prevailing mode for each class of Issue is Public.
\n
\n(b) (1) The Assessor may change the prevailing mode of voting for Proposals, with Support.
\n
\n(2) The Assistant Director of Personnel may change the prevailing mode of voting for Elections, with Support.
\n
\n(3) The prevailing mode of Referenda is always Public.
\n
\n(c) When the Voting Period on an Issue begins, the mode of voting for that particular Issue is permanently set to the prevailing mode for that class of Issue.
\n
\n(d) (1) If the mode of voting is Public, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message to the Public Forum.
\n
\n(2) If the mode of voting is Private, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message privately to the Vote Collector.
\n
\n(3) If the mode of voting is Unrestricted, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may be achieved by sending a message either publicly or privately.
\n
\n voting period. period. Any player who knowingly reveals the status of any vote to any player besides the Assessor commits the Crime of Unlawful Vote Disclosure, a Class 5 Crime.
\n'),(38265,1764,405504,405512,'There are three classes of Issues: Proposals, Elections, and Referenda.
\n
\n(a) There are three possible modes of voting on Issues: Public, Private and Unrestricted. If not otherwise defined, the prevailing mode for each class of Issue is Public.
\n
\n(b) (1) The Assessor may change the prevailing mode of voting for Proposals, with Support.
\n
\n The Assistant Associate Director of Personnel may change the prevailing mode of voting for Elections, with Support.
\n
\n(3) The prevailing mode of Referenda is always Public.
\n
\n(c) When the Voting Period on an Issue begins, the mode of voting for that particular Issue is permanently set to the prevailing mode for that class of Issue.
\n
\n(d) (1) If the mode of voting is Public, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message to the Public Forum.
\n
\n(2) If the mode of voting is Private, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message privately to the Vote Collector.
\n
\n(3) If the mode of voting is Unrestricted, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may be achieved by sending a message either publicly or privately.
\n
\n(e) If the mode of voting is Private or Unrestricted, then the status of any votes cast privately is secret until the end of the voting period. Any player who knowingly reveals the status of any vote to any player besides the Assessor commits the Crime of Unlawful Vote Disclosure, a Class 5 Crime.
\n'),(38266,1764,405512,405584,' three classes modes of Issues: Proposals, Elections, nomination for elections: selfless, selfish, and Referenda. open. If the player who initiated the election does not specify the mode of nomination for an election, it is selfish.
\n
\n(a) There are three possible modes of voting on Issues: Public, Private and Unrestricted. If not otherwise defined, the prevailing mode for each class of Issue is Public.(1) In a selfless election, any nominator may nominate any prospective besides emself.
\n
\n(b) (1) The Assessor(2) In a selfish election, any nominator who is a prospective may change the prevailing mode of voting for Proposals, with Support. nominate emself.
\n
\n(2) The Associate Director of Personnel may change the prevailing mode of voting for Elections, with Support.
\n
\n(3) The prevailing mode of Referenda is always Public.
\n
\n(c) When the Voting Period on(3) In an Issue begins, the mode of voting for that particular Issue is permanently set to the prevailing mode for that class of Issue.
\n
\n(d) (1) If the mode of voting is Public, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message to the Public Forum.
\n
\n(2) If the mode of voting is Private, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of open election, any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, nominator may only be achieved by sending a message privately to the Vote Collector.
\n
\n(3) If the mode of voting is Unrestricted, then any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that Issue, may be achieved by sending a message either publicly or privately.
\n
\n(e) If the mode of voting is Private or Unrestricted, then the status of any votes cast privately is secret until the end of the voting period. Any player who knowingly reveals the status of any vote to nominate any player besides the Assessor commits the Crime of Unlawful Vote Disclosure, a Class 5 Crime. prospective.
\n'),(38267,1769,404403,405697,' of time, not to exceed 17 days in length, time designated as such by the Rules. If one Holiday begins within 72 hours of the end of another Holiday, the two Holidays and the time between them are taken as a single Holiday, unless this would cause the combined Holiday to exceed 17 days in length, in which case the first Holiday is extended to 17 days and the second Holiday does not occur. Rules.
\n
\nDuring a Holiday, no Proposal may be distributed by the Promotor, nor may any Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of Appeal, Decision of Appeals Boards, or Opinion be published by the Clerk of the Courts; however, if any of the above do take place during the Holiday in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nThis 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38268,1769,405697,406041,'A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.
\n
\n Holiday, no Proposal may be distributed by the Promotor, nor may Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any proposals, and the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT publish any Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of Appeal, Decision of Appeals Boards, or Opinion be published by the Clerk of the Courts; however, if any of the above do take place during the Holiday in violation of this Rule, this Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects. Opinion.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nThis 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38269,1769,406041,406513,'A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.
\n
\n and the Clerk of the Courts judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial case, and judges SHALL NOT publish assign judgement to any Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of Appeal, Decision of Appeals Boards, or Opinion. judicial question.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nThis 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38270,1769,406513,406066,''),(38271,1769,406066,432381,'A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.
\n
\nDuring 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n event upon (including the time of another event, or requires that limit for a Player player to perform some action within some an action) upon the time of another event, and
\n
\na) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at which the that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the future event or of event.
\n
\nb) the time by which future event would occur during a Holiday, then the Player must perform future event occurs 72 hours after the specified action. end of that Holiday instead.
\n
\nThis 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38272,1769,432381,496717,'A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.
\n
\nDuring 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n limit for a player to perform an action) upon the time of another event, and
\n
\na) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the future event.
\n
\nb) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday instead.
\n
\n require Players to perform events to be performed before a specified time.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38273,1769,496717,497170,''),(38274,1770,404480,404915,'During each Week, the Promotor must either distribute every Proposal that was Distributable at the beginning of that Week, or announce that there were no such Proposals. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness, which any Player may detect and report.
\n
\n of whether the Proposal is Ordinary or Democratic. However, Proposal\'s Chamber. However, the failure of the Promotor to distribute any of these accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect.
\n
\nA Proposal is legally distributed only if it is explicitly marked as such. When a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nThe Promotor shall not distribute any Proposal which is not Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed. If the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was Distributable at the time it was distributed, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Illegal Abortion.
\n
\nThe Promotor aborts a Proposal by publishing an announcement to that effect, clearly identifying the Proposal which has been aborted. When a Proposal is aborted:
\n
\n(a) the Voting Period for that Proposal immediately ends, if it has not ended already; (b) all Votes cast on that Proposal are cancelled, and the Proposal fails; (c) the Assessor is relieved of any duty to report on Votes cast on that Proposal; and (d) the Proposal is added to the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nThe distribution of an Undistributable Proposal, when the Promotor knows that the Proposal is Undistributable, is the Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. The distribution of a text purporting to be a Proposal, when the Promotor knows that the text is not a Proposal, is the Class 5 Crime of Promotor Fraud.
\n'),(38275,1770,404915,404995,'During each Week, the(a) The Promotor must either is permitted to distribute every Proposal that was a Distributable Proposal at the beginning of that Week, or announce that there were no such Proposals. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness, which any Player may detect and report. time.
\n
\nThe distribution of(b) During each Proposal shall be accompanied by the identity of its Proposing Entity, and an indication of the Proposal\'s Chamber. However, the failure of Week, the Promotor is required to distribute any of these accompaniments with a every Proposal does not deprive that was Distributable at the distribution beginning of that Week, unless the Proposal of any legal effect. has since ceased to be Distributable.
\n
\nA Proposal is legally distributed only if it is explicitly marked as such. When a Proposal is distributed, it(c) If there were no Distributable Proposals at the beginning of the Week, then the Promotor is removed from required publically to note this fact at some time during the Proposal Pool. Week.
\n
\nThe(d) Failure by the Promotor shall not to either distribute any Proposal which Proposals as required in (b), or to make an announcement as required in (c), is not Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed. If the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was Distributable at the time it was distributed, e commits the Class 2 Crime 1 Infraction of Illegal Abortion. Promotor Tardiness, which any Player may report.
\n
\nThe(e) The Promotor aborts a shall include with the distribution of each Proposal by publishing the identity of its Proposing Entity, its Adoption Index, and an announcement to that effect, clearly identifying indication of the Proposal which has been aborted. When Proposal\'s Chamber. However, the failure of the Promotor to include any of these accompaniments with a Proposal is aborted: does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect.
\n
\n(a) the Voting Period for that(f) A Proposal immediately ends, is legally distributed only if it has not ended already; (b) all Votes cast on that Proposal are cancelled, and the Proposal fails; (c) the Assessor is relieved of any duty to report on Votes cast on accompanied by an explicit indication that Proposal; and (d) the it is being distributed. When a Proposal is added to distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool.
\n
\nThe(g) The Promotor shall not distribute any Proposal which is not Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed. If the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was Distributable at the time it was distributed, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Illegal Abortion.
\n
\n(h) The Promotor aborts a Proposal by publishing an announcement to that effect, clearly identifying the Proposal which has been aborted.
\n
\n(i) The distribution of an Undistributable Proposal, when the Promotor knows that the Proposal is Undistributable, is the Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. The The distribution of a text purporting to be a Proposal, when the Promotor knows that the text is not a Proposal, is the Class 5 Crime of Promotor Fraud.
\n'),(38276,1770,404995,405573,' a Distributable distributable proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time.
\n
\n each Week, week, the Promotor is required to must distribute every Proposal that each proposal which was Distributable distributable at the beginning of that Week, unless the Proposal has since ceased to be Distributable. week and which remains distributable.
\n
\n no Distributable Proposals proposals in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of the Week, a week, then the Promotor is required publically to note must announce this fact at some time during the Week. that week.
\n
\n(d) Failure by the The Promotor to either distribute Proposals as required in (b), or to make legally distributes a proposal by publishing it accompanied by an announcement as required in (c), explicit indication that it is being distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Class 1 Infraction Proposal Pool. The distribution of Promotor Tardiness, which any Player may report. a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.
\n
\n each Proposal proposal the identity of its Proposing Entity, proposer, the proposal\'s coauthors, if any, its Adoption Index, chamber, and an indication of the Proposal\'s Chamber. its adoption index. However, the failure of the Promotor to include any of these accompaniments with a Proposal proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal proposal of any legal effect.
\n
\n(f) A Proposal is legally distributed only if it is accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being distributed. When a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool.
\n
\n(g) The Promotor shall not distribute any Proposal which is not Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed. If the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was Distributable at the time it was distributed, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Illegal Abortion.
\n
\n(h) The Promotor aborts a Proposal by publishing an announcement to that effect, clearly identifying the Proposal which has been aborted.
\n
\n(i) The distribution of an Undistributable Proposal, when the Promotor knows that the Proposal is Undistributable, is the Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. The distribution of a text purporting to be a Proposal, when the Promotor knows that the text is not a Proposal, is the Class 5 Crime of Promotor Fraud. effect.
\n'),(38277,1774,404481,405574,'If, at any time, there is an Undistributable ProposalIf a proposal in the Proposal Pool which has been undistributable and in the Pool for more than two weeks, weeks continuously, then the Promotor may, at eir discretion, may remove this Proposal that proposal from the Pool, and discard it. Pool by announcement.
\n
\nAlso, the ProposerThe proposer of a Proposal in the Pool proposal may remove that Proposal it from the Pool, Pool by notifying the Promotor that e does so. announcement.
\n'),(38278,1787,404404,405428,'A break from all the stress and strife and matters of much gravity, is what this Nomic sorely needs: a dithyramb to levity!
\n
\nIn order that, just once a year, our hearts be light and gay, Let April Fool\'s Day, every year become a Holiday!
\n
\nAnd should it one day be observed by any wag who breaks a Rule, the Speaker will one Boon award to em who was the biggest Fool.
\n'),(38279,1789,404424,496701,'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.
\n
\n a Write 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38280,1789,496701,497156,' the Clerk of the Courts, Registrar, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.
\n
\n the Clerk of the Courts Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player to be deregistered and instructing the deregistered. The Registrar to shall note the method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(38281,1789,497156,497307,'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 Registrar, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register within thirty days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(38282,1789,497307,497469,'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 Registrar, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nA player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register within thirty days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(38283,1789,497469,496906,' the Registrar, 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.
\n
\n the Registrar Clerk of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player to be deregistered. The deregistered and instructing the Registrar shall to note the method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(38284,1793,404518,405555,' a Player player and directed to some entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing one or more actions.
\n
\n an Office or other official position in eir capacity as in that Office or other official position, and in this case if the Office or position changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that Office or position.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the foregoing, an Order, the purpose of which isAn Order may also be directed at a prior order so as to affect the operation of a prior Order, is order\'s operation, as the Rules permit.
\n
\nAll Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for their class are presumed valid as any other Order, and is said enforceable until proven otherwise by CFJ. No Order may act to be directed at prevent or hinder its own appeal in any way. Knowingly and willfully executing invalid Orders constitutes the prior Order it affects. Class 10 Crime of Abuse of Authority.
\n'),(38285,1793,405555,405699,'An Order is a command, executed by a player and directed to some entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing one or more actions.
\n
\nAn Order may be directed to the holder of an official position in eir capacity in that official position, and if the position changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that position.
\n
\nAn Order may also be directed at a prior order so as to affect the prior order\'s operation, as the Rules permit.
\n
\n by CFJ. No Order may act to prevent or hinder its own appeal in any way. Knowingly and willfully executing invalid Orders constitutes the Class 10 Crime of Abuse of Authority. CFJ.
\n'),(38286,1793,405699,405971,' by a player an entity and directed to some entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or to refrain from performing one or more actions.
\n
\nAn Order may be directed to the holder of an official position in eir capacity in that official position, and if the position changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that position.
\n
\nAn Order may also be directed at a prior order so as to affect the prior order\'s operation, as the Rules permit.
\n
\nAll Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for their class are presumed valid and enforceable until proven otherwise by CFJ.
\n'),(38287,1794,404520,405069,'(a) EachEach Order is of exactly one of the following classes: (1) Judicial: A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Player while acting as a Judge. (2) Appellate: An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals. (3) Administrative: An Administrative Order is classes. If an Order executed by an Officer in the course of performing the duties of that Office, except when those duties involve acting as a member could be of a Board more than one of Appeals. (4) Legislative: A Legislative Order these classes, then it is an Order executed as part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal. (5) Private: A Private Order is any Order not described above. first class that matches.
\n
\n(b) For the purpose(a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of this Rule, the holder effect of any the adoption of a Proposal.
\n
\n(b) A Sentencing Order is an Order executed to impose the following positions shall be considered penalty for a Crime.
\n
\n(c) A Ticketing Order is an Officer when performing Order executed to impose the penalty for an Infraction.
\n
\n(d) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a duty required Board of Appeals.
\n
\n(e) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by or a privilege permitted only Judge in the course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.
\n
\n(f) An Administrative Order is an Order executed by virtue an Officer in the course of holding that position: (1) performing the Speaker; duties or (2) privileges of that Office. For the purpose of this Rule, the following positions are deemed to be Offices:
\n
\n(i) The Speaker. (ii) The Recordkeepor of a Currency. Currency.
\n
\n(g) Any other Order is a Private Order.
\n'),(38288,1794,405069,405257,'Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of the first class that matches.
\n
\n(a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal.
\n
\n(b) A Sentencing Order is an Order executed to impose the penalty for a Crime.
\n
\n(c) A Ticketing Order is an Order executed to impose the penalty for an Infraction.
\n
\n(d) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals.
\n
\n(e) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.
\n
\n the following positions are Speaker is deemed to be Offices:
\n
\n(i) The Speaker. (ii) The Recordkeepor of a Currency. an Office.
\n
\n(g) Any other Order is a Private Order.
\n'),(38289,1794,405257,405556,'Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of the first class that matches.
\n
\n(a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal.
\n
\n(b) A Sentencing Order is an Order executed to impose the penalty for a Crime.
\n
\n(c) A Ticketing Order is an Order executed to impose the penalty for an Infraction.
\n
\n(d) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals.
\n
\n(e) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.
\n
\n(f) An Administrative A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by an Officer in any person and directed at any entity. A timing order is valid if and only if it orders the course entity to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically required of performing em by the duties or privileges of Rules that Office. For does not otherwise have a specified timing requirement, or for which the purpose of this Rule, otherwise specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as soon as possible after the Speaker Order is deemed to be an Office. executed.
\n
\n(g) AnyNo other Order is a Private Order. types of Orders are valid.
\n'),(38290,1794,405556,405700,'Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of the first class that matches.
\n
\n(a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal.
\n
\n(b) A Sentencing An Appellate Order is an Order executed to impose the penalty for by a Crime. Board of Appeals.
\n
\n A Ticketing Judicial Order is an Order executed to impose by a Judge in the penalty for an Infraction. course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.
\n
\n(d) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals.
\n
\n(e) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.
\n
\n(f) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any person and directed at any entity. A timing order is valid if and only if it orders the entity to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically required of em by the Rules that does not otherwise have a specified timing requirement, or for which the otherwise specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as soon as possible after the Order is executed.
\n
\nNo other types of Orders are valid.
\n'),(38291,1794,405700,405954,'Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of the first class that matches.
\n
\n(a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal.
\n
\n(b) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals.
\n
\n(c) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.
\n
\n person by announcement and directed at any entity. A timing order is valid if and only if it orders the entity to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically required of em by the Rules that does not otherwise have a specified timing requirement, or for which the otherwise specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as soon as possible after the Order is executed.
\n
\nNo other types of Orders are valid.
\n'),(38292,1794,405954,405960,'Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of the first class that matches.
\n
\n(a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal.
\n
\n(b) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals.
\n
\n as Judge. Judge. A Judicial Oredr is executed by announcement.
\n
\n(d) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any person by announcement and directed at any entity. A timing order is valid if and only if it orders the entity to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically required of em by the Rules that does not otherwise have a specified timing requirement, or for which the otherwise specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as soon as possible after the Order is executed.
\n
\nNo other types of Orders are valid.
\n'),(38293,1794,405960,406070,'Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of the first class that matches.
\n
\n(a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal.
\n
\n(b) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of Appeals.
\n
\n(c) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge. A Judicial Oredr is executed by announcement.
\n
\n(d) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any person by announcement and directed at any entity. A timing order is valid if and only if it orders the entity to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically required of em by the Rules that does not otherwise have a specified timing requirement, or for which the otherwise specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as soon as possible after the Order is executed.
\n
\nNo other types of Orders are valid.
\n'),(38294,1795,404521,405557,' Order which commands the performance of an action may specify when that action is to be performed; if no specification is given, or the specification given would require time limit for the performance of the action at an ordered action. If a time when the Order limit is without effect, or if the specification given would allow less than 72 hours from the time when after the Order takes effect to perform the action, then effect, the Order time limit shall be 72 hours. If no time limit is specified, time limit shall be taken to require the performance of the action as soon as possible after the Order takes effect.
\n
\n the specification would require the performance of the action at a time before the current holder of the position came to hold that position, limit is before, or would allow less than 72 hours from the time after, the current holder of the position came to hold that position, then the Order current holder shall be taken to require the performance of the action have as soon as possible after the current holder of the position came to hold satisfy that position. However, this shall not be taken to absolve the previous holder of the position of any penalties e might otherwise incur. order.
\n
\n which Orders orders must be performed. The noncompliance of an Order order with this Rule does not deprive that Order order of all effect, but instead modifies the effect timing requirements of that Order with respect to the time at which or by which the actions it requires must be performed. order.
\n'),(38295,1795,405557,405701,'An Order may specify the time limit for the performance of an ordered action. If a time limit is less than 72 hours after the Order takes effect, the time limit shall be 72 hours. If no time limit is specified, time limit shall be as soon as possible after the Order takes effect.
\n
\n satisfied, and the time limit is before, or less than 72 hours after, the current holder of the position came to hold that position, then the current holder shall have as soon as possible to satisfy that order.
\n
\nOther Rules may establish other times by which orders must be performed. TheThe noncompliance of an order with this Rule does not deprive that order of all effect, but instead modifies the timing requirements of the order.
\n'),(38296,1795,405701,405771,'An Order may specify the time limit for the performance ofOrders to perform an ordered action. If action shall be satisfied as soon as possible, unless the Order specifies a different time limit. The minimum time limit is less than 72 hours after the Order takes effect, the effect; any time limit shall that would be 72 hours. If no time limit shorter is specified, time limit shall be as soon as possible after extended to the Order takes effect. minimum.
\n
\n Order which commands the performance of to perform an action is directed to an Office or other position of authority, and the holder of that position of authority changes after the Order takes effect, but before the Order is satisfied, then the current holder shall have as soon as possible time limit is extended (if needed) to satisfy that order.
\n
\nThe noncompliance of an order with this Rule does not deprive that order of all effect, but instead modifies the timing requirements of one week after the order. change.
\n'),(38297,1799,404524,405558,'Any Order may always be amended, stayed, or vacated by the Player (or, in the case of Appellate Orders, Board of Appeal) who executed it. Certain classesThe effect of Orders may be amended, stayed, or vacated in other circumstances as well, when the Rules so allow. In all cases, this is done by staying an Order is to Amend, Stay, or Vacate, respectively, temporarily prevent the original Order. stayed Order from having any effect.
\n
\nOtherwise,A stay may be ordered for a fixed time, in which case the stay expires at the time specified; or for an indefinite time, in which case the stay will not expire. If no specification is made in the Order to Stay, the stay shall not be amended, stayed, indefinite.
\n
\nWhen the stay expires or is vacated, the previously stayed order again has effect as if it had been originally executed at the moment the stay ceases to be effective. However, if at the time the staying Order expires or otherwise changed once executed. ceases to have effect, the stayed Order has been vacated or is subject to another staying Order, it does not regain effect.
\n
\nThe effect of vacating an Order is to permanently deny the vacated Order from having any effect. Vacating an Order to Vacate reinstates the ability of the vacated Order to have effect, as of the moment the Order to Vacate is itself vacated.
\n
\nAny Order may always be stayed or vacated by the Player (or, in the case of Appellate Orders, Board of Appeal) who executed it. Certain classes of Orders may be stayed or vacated in other circumstances as well, but only as the Rules allow.
\n'),(38298,1799,405558,405702,'The effect of staying an Order is to temporarily prevent the stayed Order from having any effect.
\n
\n be ordered for specified to expire after a fixed time, in which case the stay expires at the time specified; or for an indefinite time, in which case the stay will not expire. time. If no specification is made in the Order to Stay, the stay shall be indefinite. not expire.
\n
\nWhen the stay expires or is vacated, the previously stayed order again has effect as if it had been originally executed at the moment the stay ceases to be effective. However, if at the time the staying Order expires or otherwise ceases to have effect, the stayed Order has been vacated or is subject to another staying Order, it does not regain effect.
\n
\nThe effect of vacating an Order is to permanently deny the vacated Order from having any effect. Vacating an Order to Vacate reinstates the ability of the vacated Order to have effect, as of the moment the Order to Vacate is itself vacated.
\n
\nAny Order may always be stayed or vacated by the Player (or, in the case of Appellate Orders, Board of Appeal) who executed it. Certain classes of Orders may be stayed or vacated in other circumstances as well, but only as the Rules allow.
\n'),(38299,1803,404553,405071,' Orders and Sentencing Orders are executed by being sent to the Clerk of the Courts, but do not take effect until their publication by the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Judicial Order and Sentencing Order as soon as possible after receiving it from the Judge who executed it.
\n'),(38300,1803,405071,405560,'Judicial Orders and Sentencing Orders are executed by being sent to the Clerk of the Courts, but do not take effect until their publication by the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Judicial Order and Sentencing Order as soon as possible after receiving it from the Judge who executed it.
\n
\nAny Player may formally request a Judge issue any Judicial Order by filing a motion requesting that Order. If granted, the Judge shall issue the Order requested.
\n'),(38301,1804,404554,404950,'Judicial Orders are subject to appeal toAs soon as possible after a Board Judicial Order is Appealed, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay it. If the Appeal by a Call for Appeal. is sustained, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate this stay as soon as possible.
\n
\nThe Board of Appeal shall, upon finding that a Judicial Order is improperly or invalidly executed, order that that Order be amended or vacated, as it deems appropriate.
\n
\nWhen the Clerk ofIn the Courts receives a properly executed Call for Appeal of a Judicial Order, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay the Order under appeal. If the Board of Appeals affirms the validity of the original Order, it shall then vacate this stay. consider whether the Order was properly and validly executed.
\n'),(38302,1804,404950,405072,' Order or Sentencing Order is Appealed, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay it. If the Appeal is sustained, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate this stay as soon as possible. If the Appeal is sustained, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate the stayed Order as soon as possible.
\n
\n Judicial Order or Sentencing Order, the Board of Appeals shall consider whether the Order was properly and validly executed.
\n'),(38303,1804,405072,405719,' is sustained, overturned, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate the stayed Order as soon as possible.
\n
\nIn the Appeal of a Judicial Order or Sentencing Order, the Board of Appeals shall consider whether the Order was properly and validly executed.
\n'),(38304,1804,405719,405962,' Order or Sentencing Order is Appealed, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay it. If the Appeal is sustained, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate this stay as soon as possible. If the Appeal is overturned, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate the stayed Order as soon as possible.
\n
\n Judicial Order or Sentencing Order, the Board of Appeals shall consider whether the Order was properly and validly executed.
\n'),(38305,1805,404573,404959,' Lead Justice Judge of a Board of Appeals, but do not take effect until their publication by the Clerk of the Courts. The Lead Justice Judge shall certify in eir submission to the Clerk of the Courts that the Order is executed by the concurrence of the majority of the Justices comprising that Board of Appeals; failure to do so deprives the Order of effect.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal which executed it.
\n'),(38306,1805,404959,405720,' Courts. The The Lead Judge shall must certify in eir submission to the Clerk of the Courts execution that the Order order is executed by the concurrence of the majority of the Justices comprising that Board of Appeals; failure to do so deprives the Order of effect. effect.
\n
\nAppellate Orders are not subject to appeal. However, upon a judicial finding that the required certification was falsely provided, the Clerk of the Courts shall vacate the Order which was accompanied by that false certification.
\n
\nAppellate Orders are valid only if addressed to: a) The Clerk of the Courts in eir Official capacity; b) an Order issued by the Clerk of the Courts in eir Official Capacity; c) The Judge of the CFJ which that Board of Appeals was convened to consider, or any Order issued by that Judge in that particular CFJ; or d) any combination of the above. All other Appellate Orders are presumptively invalid.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal which executed it.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the validity of Appellate Orders.
\n'),(38307,1805,405720,406033,' being sent to the Clerk of the Courts published by the Lead Judge of a Board of Appeals, but do not take effect until their publication by the Clerk of the Courts. Appeals. The Lead Judge must certify in the execution that the order is executed by the concurrence of the majority of the Justices comprising that Board of Appeals; failure to do so deprives the Order of effect.
\n
\nAppellate Orders are not subject to appeal. However, upon a judicial finding that the required certification was falsely provided, the Clerk of the Courts shall vacate the Order which was accompanied by that false certification.
\n
\nAppellate Orders are valid only if addressed to: a) The Clerk of the Courts in eir Official capacity; b) an Order issued by the Clerk of the Courts in eir Official Capacity; c) The Judge of the CFJ which that Board of Appeals was convened to consider, or any Order issued by that Judge in that particular CFJ; or d) any combination of the above. All other Appellate Orders are presumptively invalid.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal which executed it.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the validity of Appellate Orders.
\n'),(38308,1805,406033,406023,''),(38309,1810,404530,405559,' be satisfied. satisfied. Except when otherwise specified, a single action can result in the satisfaction of at most one Order. If an action would satisfy more than one Order, and no other specification is made, the Action satisfies the oldest Order which it would satisfy.
\n
\nIf an Order requires an entity to perform an action prior to a specified time, and the Order is not satisfied prior to that time specified in the Order commits the Class 4 Crime of Contempt by Inaction.
\n
\nExcept when otherwise specified, a single action can result in the satisfaction of at most one Order. IfAny entity who, while required by an action would satisfy more than one Order, and no other specification is made, Order to refrain from performing an action, performs the Action satisfies proscribed action while the oldest Order which it would satisfy. is in effect commits the Class 4 Crime of Contempt by Action.
\n
\n be invalid, and the invalidity of the Order is a complete defense to a Criminal accusation made under this Rule. invalid.
\n'),(38310,1810,405559,405703,'An Order requiring an entity to perform an action is satisfied when that entity performs that action. Other Rules may define other ways for Orders to be satisfied. Except when otherwise specified, a single action can result in the satisfaction of at most one Order. If an action would satisfy more than one Order, and no other specification is made, the Action satisfies the oldest Order which it would satisfy.
\n
\nIf an Order requires an entity to perform an action prior to a specified time, and the Order is not satisfied prior to that time specified in the Order commits the Class 4 Crime of Contempt by Inaction.
\n
\nAny entity who, while required by an Order to refrain fromWillfully performing an action, performs the proscribed contrary to valid orders, either through action while the Order or inaction, is in effect commits the Class 4 Crime a violation of Contempt by Action.
\n
\nThis Rule shall have no application with respect to any Order which has been adjudicated to be invalid. this Rule.
\n'),(38311,1810,405703,406043,'An Order requiring an entity to perform an action is satisfied when that entity performs that action. Other Rules may define other ways for Orders to be satisfied. Except when otherwise specified, a single action can result in the satisfaction of at most one Order. If an action would satisfy more than one Order, and no other specification is made, the Action satisfies the oldest Order which it would satisfy.
\n
\nWillfully performingA player SHALL NOT willfully perform contrary to a valid orders, unsatisfied order, either through action or inaction, is a violation of this Rule. inaction.
\n'),(38312,1812,404581,405022,'If an entity (hereafter the Defendant) commits an Infraction, then any Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission of that Infraction may announce a Notice of Infraction. This Notice shall explicitly specify the following:
\n
\n action of or inaction by which the Defendant committed the Infraction. e) Whatever Orders are sufficient to impose the penalty for the Infraction.
\n
\nIf a Claim of Error alleging that the Defendant did not commit the Infraction is admitted, then the Player who announced the Notice of Infraction shall vacate all Orders that e executed to impose the penalty for the Infraction.
\n'),(38313,1812,405022,405077,' the Defendant) Jaywalker) commits an Infraction, then any Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission of that Infraction (hereafter the Traffic Cop) may announce publish a Notice of Infraction. This Notice shall explicitly specify the following:
\n
\n the Defendant. Jaywalker. c) The Rule(s) defining that action or inaction as an Infraction. d) The action or inaction by which the Defendant Jaywalker committed the Infraction. e) Whatever All and only those Ticketing Orders are necessary and sufficient to impose the penalty for the Infraction. that Infraction. The Orders are executed and take effect upon publication.
\n
\nIfWhen a Player publishes a Claim of Error alleging that the Defendant Jaywalker did not commit the Infraction Infraction, e may (in the same message as the COE) stay one or more of the Ticketing Orders. If the COE is admitted, denied, then the Player who announced Traffic Cop shall vacate the Notice of Infraction Order to Stay as soon as possible. If the COE is admitted, then the Traffic Cop shall vacate all the stayed Ticketing Orders that e executed as soon as possible.
\n
\nPlayers are encouraged to impose the penalty for CFJ on the Infraction. commission of Infractions only when a question of interpretation, rather than of fact, arises.
\n'),(38314,1816,404583,405078,'AnyNo Player may be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction.
\n
\nIf a non-dismissed CFJ whose Statement alleges that an entity has, through action or inaction, a Player has committed a Crime shall be dismissed if there is through a prior CFJ, the statement of which alleges given action or inaction, then any further CFJ alleging that the same entity has, Player has committed the same Crime through the same action or inaction, committed the same Crime, inaction lacks standing and which was itself not shall be dismissed.
\n'),(38315,1816,405078,404987,'No(a) No Player may be penalized more than once for any single action act, or inaction. failure to act, that is in violation of one or more Rules.
\n
\nIf(b) Where a non-dismissed CFJ exists whose Statement alleges that a Player has committed a Crime through a given action or inaction, then inaction violated a Rule, and that CFJ has not been dismissed, any further CFJ alleging that the same Player has committed the same Crime through the same action or inaction violated the same Rule, lacks standing and shall be dismissed.
\n'),(38316,1826,404555,405713,' a CFJ. CFJ. A Motion is made by submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts, clearly identifying the CFJ to which the Motion applies.
\n
\nAThe Clerk of the Courts shall forward each properly-filed Motion is made by submitting it to the Clerk Judge of the Courts, clearly identifying the CFJ to which the Motion applies. applies as soon as possible after receiving it. A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion so forwarded within five days of receiving it. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.
\n
\nThe effect of granting a Motion depends on its nature, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to perform as requested by the Motion.
\n
\nUpon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on the record of the Courts CFJ, and shall forward each properly-filed notify the Player who made the Motion of that determination.
\n
\nIf a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within five days of when it was forwarded to em by the Judge Clerk of the CFJ to which Courts, the Motion applies as soon Clerk of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as possible usual.
\n
\nIf a Motion is made after receiving it. a case is closed, and the original Judge of that case is not active or is not a player, then a new Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.
\n'),(38317,1826,405713,406032,'A Motion motion is a formal request made by a Player player to the Judge judge of a CFJ. A Motion motion is made by submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts, announcement, which must clearly identifying identify the CFJ to which the Motion motion applies.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall forward each properly-filed Motion to the Judge judge of the a CFJ to which the Motion applies as soon as possible after receiving it. A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion so forwarded motion that applies to that CFJ within five days of receiving it. A Judge grants it being made. If a judge fails to grant or denies deny an applicable motion within five days of it being made, the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse the judge and assign a new one. If a Motion by sending eir determination on motion is made after a case has been judged, and the original judge of that Motion to case is not active or is not a player, then the Clerk of the Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide. Courts shall assign a new judge.
\n
\nTheA judge grants or denies a motion by publishing eir determination, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers relevant. The effect of granting a Motion motion depends on its nature, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge judge to perform as requested by the Motion.
\n
\nUpon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the Motion of that determination.
\n
\nIf a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within five days of when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, the Clerk of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as usual.
\n
\nIf a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original Judge of that case is not active or is not a player, then a new Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual. motion. A denied motion has no further effect.
\n'),(38318,1826,406032,406022,''),(38319,1827,404556,404690,'A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.
\n
\nThe effect of granting a Motion depends on the nature of the Motion granted, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to perform as requested by the Motion.
\n
\nUpon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the Motion of that determination.
\n
\n within seven five days of when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, e commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Slow Motion, detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If this occurs, the Clerk of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as usual.
\n
\nIf a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original Judge of that case is no longer a Player or is On Hold, then a new Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.
\n'),(38320,1827,404690,404903,'A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.
\n
\nThe effect of granting a Motion depends on the nature of the Motion granted, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to perform as requested by the Motion.
\n
\nUpon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the Motion of that determination.
\n
\nIf a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within five days of when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, e commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Slow Motion, detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If this occurs, the Clerk of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as usual.
\n
\n is no longer a Player not active or is On Hold, not a player, then a new Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.
\n'),(38321,1827,404903,405073,'A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.
\n
\nThe effect of granting a Motion depends on the nature of the Motion granted, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to perform as requested by the Motion.
\n
\nUpon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the Motion of that determination.
\n
\n Motion, detected and which may be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If this occurs, the Clerk of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as usual.
\n
\nIf a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original Judge of that case is not active or is not a player, then a new Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.
\n'),(38322,1830,404560,404951,'No validAny Order to Compel may be directed to a Judge, or may require requiring the performance of any a duty required of a Player by the virtue of because that Player being is a Judge. Any such Order Judge, is invalid. Any
\n
\nAny CFJ alleging that a Judgement is incorrect, or that a Judge has failed to perform a duty of a judicial nature shall duty, lacks standing. Such a claim should instead be dismissed. pursued via Appeal.
\n'),(38323,1830,404951,405562,' is invalid. invalid, unless that Order is a valid Appellate Order.
\n
\nAny CFJ alleging that a Judgement is incorrect, or that a Judge has failed to perform a judicial duty, lacks standing. Such a claim should instead be pursued via Appeal.
\n'),(38324,1835,404515,405007,'During the Voting Period of an Election, any Candidate for that Election may stand down, by posting a public message to that effect. The player is then no longer to be considered a Candidate for that Election. Any further votes cast in eir favour are invalid, and e cannot win the Election.
\n
\nAny votes cast for a Player who stands down are cancelled, and any Player who cast such a vote is considered to have declared eir Presence in that Election. Additionally, any Player who cast such a vote may vote again, unless e has already cast another vote which remains uncancelled, and this Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would prevent such a vote.
\n
\n that Election. For the purposes of Rules on awarding Points, that Election shall not be considered a contested Election.
\n'),(38325,1835,405007,405345,'During the Voting Period of an Election, any Candidate for that Election may stand down, by posting a public message to that effect. The player is then no longer to be considered a Candidate for that Election. Any further votes cast in eir favour are invalid, and e cannot win the Election.
\n
\nAny votes cast for a Player who stands down are cancelled, and any Player who cast such a vote is considered to have declared eir Presence in that Election. Additionally, any Player who cast such a vote may vote again, unless e has already cast another vote which remains uncancelled, and this Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would prevent such a vote.
\n
\n that Election. For the purposes of Rules on awarding Points, that Election shall not be considered a contested Election.
\n'),(38326,1840,404452,405250,'Each player\'s Political StatusOrthodoxy is either Abiding or Rebellious; the Registrar shall include a list of Rebellious players in the Registrar\'s Report. A stuck player can change switch with values abiding and rebellious.
\n
\nA player may flip eir Political Status by publicly announcing e does so, provided orthodoxy, unless e has not changed eir Political Status done so during the current month. A new players is always Abiding when e becomes a player. month.
\n
\nAt the beginning of each month, each Rebellious Player commits the Class 2 Infraction of Inciting to Riot (to be reported by the Registrar), unless all of the following are true at that time:
\n
\ni) The Registrar has not announced whether the last Call for Revolt succeeded or failed. ii) The Player was Rebellious at the time of the last Call for Revolt. iii) The Player has not changed from Abiding to Rebellious since the last Call for Revolt.
\n
\nin which case the Player is Hauled Into Kangaroo Court instead.
\n
\nWhen a Call for Revolt fails, each Player Hauled Into Kangaroo Court since the Call for Revolt commits the Infraction of Inciting to Riot, as defined above.
\n'),(38327,1841,404426,404733,'Any(a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered for two or more than two months is empowered to give another willing Player eir Power of Attorney for a specified period of time. The giving (PoA) to another Player shall be known, for this Rule, (the Holder), as the Grantor. The receiving Player shall be known, for specified in this Rule, as the Holder. Rule.
\n
\nPower(b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of Attorney is given by the Grantor publicly announcing such, naming following conditions are met: (1) the Holder Grantor has announced that e is giving the Power of Attorney grants eir PoA to and the time period for which Holder; (2) the Power of Attorney is given. To be effective, this post must name a time that begins within Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or immediately following the posting. The Power of Attorney shall not be granted unless Grantor\'s announcement, publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA; (3) the Holder is an active Player Active; and consents publicly before (4) the beginning grant of the specified period PoA has not been withdrawn for any of time. the reasons listed in (d).
\n
\nIf the(c) The grant is effective, of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder shall then have consents to the Power of Attorney beginning grant, or at the time specified time. This by the Grantor, whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at which the grant shall end when one of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no more than seven says from the following occurs; Grantor\'s announcement. Later specifications are without effect for the purposes of this Rule.
\n
\ni)(d) The grant of PoA is withdrawn if: (1) the period of the grant specified expires. ii) The by the Grantor posts publicly that e is withdrawing eir Power of Attorney. iii) The expires; (2) the Grantor publically withdraws the grant; (3) the Grantor is deregistered, or goes On Hold. iv) The deregistered; (4) the Assessor is mischevious; (5) the Holder is deregistered, deregistered or goes On Hold v) It Hold; or (6) the Holder has been over held the PoA continuously for three months since months.
\n
\n(e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.
\n
\n(f) Other Rules to the Grantor gave eir Power of Attorney contrary notwithstanding, no Player who has granted PoA to another Player as described in this Rule shall become a Zombie while the Holder. grant of PoA is in effect.
\n'),(38328,1841,404733,404785,'(a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified in this Rule.
\n
\n(b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the Holder; (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement, publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA; (3) the Holder is Active; and (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the reasons listed in (d).
\n
\n(c) The grant of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder consents to the grant, or at the time specified by the Grantor, whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at which the grant of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no more than seven says from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later specifications are without effect for the purposes of this Rule.
\n
\n the Assessor is mischevious; (5) the Holder is deregistered or goes On Hold; or (6) (5) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three months.
\n
\n(e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.
\n
\n this Rule rule shall become a Zombie be deregistered while the grant of PoA is in effect.
\n'),(38329,1841,404785,404895,'(a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified in this Rule.
\n
\n(b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the Holder; (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement, publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA; (3) the Holder is Active; and (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the reasons listed in (d).
\n
\n(c) The grant of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder consents to the grant, or at the time specified by the Grantor, whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at which the grant of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no more than seven says from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later specifications are without effect for the purposes of this Rule.
\n
\n Holder is deregistered ceases to be active or goes On Hold; is deregistered; or (5) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three months.
\n
\n(e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.
\n
\n(f) Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player who has granted PoA to another Player as described in this rule shall be deregistered while the grant of PoA is in effect.
\n'),(38330,1841,404895,405400,'(a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified in this Rule.
\n
\n(b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the Holder; (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement, publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA; (3) the Holder is Active; and (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the reasons listed in (d).
\n
\n seven says days from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later specifications are without effect for the purposes of this Rule.
\n
\n(d) The grant of PoA is withdrawn if: (1) the period of the grant specified by the Grantor expires; (2) the Grantor publically withdraws the grant; (3) the Grantor is deregistered; (4) the Holder ceases to be active or is deregistered; or (5) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three months.
\n
\n(e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.
\n
\n(f) Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player who has granted PoA to another Player as described in this rule shall be deregistered while the grant of PoA is in effect.
\n'),(38331,1842,404427,404734,'In certain specified circumstances the(a) The Rules may grant one a Player, hereafter called the Holder, Power of Attorney for another Player, hereafter called the Grantor. Such a grant shall Power of Attorney is granted only occur when as specified by the Rules, and shall last only as long as the Rules permit. specify.
\n
\nWhen(b) While the Holder is granted Power of Attorney for the Grantor, that means that the Holder becomes the sole is an Executor for of the Grantor for as long as e has that Power Grantor, and the Prime Executor of Attorney. the Grantor.
\n
\nNo(c) No Player is permitted to have Power of Attorney for more than two other Players.
\n'),(38332,1853,404617,404743,'Taxes may be levied only by an Officer explicitly permitted by the Rules to do so.
\n
\nAn Officer levies a tax by announcing that e does so, and specifying:
\n
\n(1) The Currency being taxed. (2) The percentage of the tax. (3) Any exemptions applying to the tax. (4) The Rule authorizing em to levy the tax.
\n
\nUpon such an announcement, each taxable entity becomes liable to the Bank for a debt equal to the specified percentage of eir taxable holdings of that Currency at the time of the announcement. As soon as possible after this happens, the Recordkeepor of that Currency shall publish a report listing each entity\'s holdings of that Currency as of the time of the announcement.
\n
\nAll entities are taxable, except for:
\n
\n Players who were Rebellious at the time the intent to levy was published (c) entities explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing the levy as tax-exempt for that levy
\n
\nAll Currency holdings are taxable, except for holdings explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing the levy as tax-exempt for that levy.
\n
\nThe percentage of the tax may not exceed 50%, unless the Rule authorizing the levy explicitly permits it to do so.
\n'),(38333,1853,404743,405141,'Taxes(a) Taxes may be levied only by an Officer a person explicitly permitted empowered by the Rules rules to do so. so; each currency Recordkeepor is empowered to levy a tax on that currency, and is herein referred to as "the taxing authority".
\n
\nAn Officer levies(b) The procedure for levying a tax by announcing that e does so, and specifying: may be summarized as follows: first, the taxing authority publically issues an announcement of intent to levy a tax; second, at a later point, the taxing authority publically issues a tax notice.
\n
\n(1) The Currency(c) To be valid, both the notice of intent to levy a tax, and the tax notice itself, must specify the elements of the tax, viz., the currency being taxed. (2) The taxed, the tax rate expressed as a percentage of holdings (which may not exceed 50% unless the tax. (3) Any exemptions applying to the tax. (4) The Rule authorizing em to levy the tax. tax explicitly permits it), and any exemptions.
\n
\nUpon such an announcement, each taxable entity becomes liable to the Bank for a debt equal to the(d) An exemption is specified as a percentage of eir taxable holdings of that Currency at the time of the announcement. As soon as possible after this happens, the Recordkeepor of that Currency shall publish a report listing each entity\'s holdings of that Currency as of a taxable entity. It may be set at the time discretion of the announcement. taxing authority, provided that:
\n
\nAll entities(1) all players are taxable, except for: exempt identical amounts, (2) all non-players are exempt identical amounts, and (3) the non-players\' exemption is less than or equal to the players\' exemption.
\n
\n(a) the Bank (b) all Rebellious Players who were Rebellious at the time the(e) A notice of intent to levy was published (c) entities explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing the a tax may not validly be issued while another attempt to levy as tax-exempt for a tax in that levy currency is proceeding in accordance with this rule.
\n
\nAll Currency holdings are taxable, except for holdings explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing(f) A tax notice may only validly be issued between seven and fourteen days after the publication of a valid notice of intent to levy as tax-exempt for that levy. a tax, and at least 30 days after the publication of the last valid tax notice (if there has been one).
\n
\nThe percentage(g) A tax notice must also indicate the currency holdings of each taxable entity at the time of the publication of the notice of intent to levy a tax, and the tax may debt incurred by each such entity.
\n
\n(h) The tax debt for each taxable entity is calculated on the basis of the entity\'s holdings at the time of the publication of the notice of intent to levy a tax. Any holdings exempt from the tax are exempted, and the tax is applied to the remainder at the specified tax rate.
\n
\n(i) Any error in the calculation of holdings or tax debts for a taxable entity does not exceed 50%, unless invalidate the Rule authorizing tax notice with respect to the other taxable entities mentioned in it.
\n
\n(j) Upon the publication of a valid tax notice, each taxable entity incurs a debt to the Bank equal to the tax debt for that entity.
\n
\n(k) All entities are taxable, except for: (1) the Bank, (2) rebellious players who were rebellious at the time the intent to levy was published, and (3) entities explicitly permits it to do so. specified by the rule authorizing the levy as non-taxable for that levy.
\n'),(38334,1853,405141,405176,'(a) Taxes may be levied only by a person explicitly empowered by the rules to do so; each currencyThe Recordkeepor is empowered to of a Currency ("the taxing authority") may levy a tax on that currency, and is herein referred to Currency only as "the taxing authority". follows:
\n
\n(b) The procedure for levying a tax may be summarized as follows: first,(A) First, the taxing authority publically issues an announcement of intent to levy a tax; second, at a later point, the taxing authority publically issues a tax notice. notice (the levy).
\n
\n(c)(B) To be valid, both the notice of intent to levy a tax, and the tax notice itself, must specify the elements of the tax, viz., the currency being taxed, the tax rate expressed as a percentage of holdings (which may not exceed 50% unless the Rule authorizing the tax explicitly permits it), 50%), and any exemptions.
\n
\n(d) An exemption is specified as a percentage(C) The tax notice must be published between seven and fourteen days after the time of the holdings announcement of a taxable entity. It may the intent to issue the levy, and must be set at least 30 days after the discretion last valid tax notice published for that Currency. The announcement of intent to issue the levy may not take place while another attempt to levy a tax on that Currency is pending under the taxing authority, provided that: authority of this Rule.
\n
\n(1) all players(D) The tax may include exemptions on a fixed amount of the holdings of every taxable entity, provided that: (i) All Players are exempt identical amounts, (2) all non-players (ii) All Non-players are exempt identical amounts, and (3) the non-players\' (iii) The Non-players\' exemption is less than or equal to the players\' Players\' exemption.
\n
\n(e) A(E) The tax debt for each taxable entity is calculated on the basis of the entity\'s holdings at the time of the publication of the notice of intent to levy a intent. Any holdings exempt from the tax may not validly be issued while another attempt to levy a are exempted, and the tax in that currency is proceeding in accordance with this rule. applied to the remainder at the specified tax rate.
\n
\n(f)(F) A tax notice may only validly be issued between seven and fourteen days after must also indicate the currency holdings of each taxable entity at the time of the publication of a valid the notice of intent to levy a tax, and at least 30 days after the publication tax debt incurred by each such entity. Any error in the calculation of holdings or tax debts does not invalidate the last valid tax notice (if there has been one). with respect to the other taxable entities mentioned in it.
\n
\n(g) A tax notice must also indicate(G) Upon the currency holdings publication of a valid tax notice, each taxable entity at the time of incurs a debt to the publication Mintor of the notice of intent Currency equal to levy a tax, and the eir tax debt incurred by each such entity. debt.
\n
\n(h) The tax debt for each taxable entity is calculated on the basis of the entity\'s holdings(H) All entities are taxable, except for: (i) rebellious players who were rebellious at the time of the publication of the notice of intent to levy a tax. Any holdings exempt from the tax are exempted, was published, and (ii) entities explicitly specified by the tax is applied to the remainder at rule authorizing the specified tax rate. levy as non-taxable for that levy.
\n
\n(i) Any error in the calculation of holdings or tax debts for a taxableOther Rules may specify conditions under which an entity does not invalidate the tax notice with respect to the other taxable entities mentioned in it.
\n
\n(j) Upon than the publication recordkeepor of a valid tax notice, each taxable entity incurs currency may be a debt to the Bank equal to the tax debt taxing authority for that entity.
\n
\n(k) All entities are taxable, except for: (1) the Bank, (2) rebellious players who were rebellious at the time the intent to levy was published, and (3) entities explicitly specified by the rule authorizing the levy as non-taxable for that levy. purposes of this Rule.
\n'),(38335,1868,404539,404698,' its Judge. Judge and announce eir selection. This selection shall be made from amongst all those Players eligible to serve as the Judge of that CFJ.
\n
\nOnce selected as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the Judge of that CFJ until e is Recused from that CFJ or becomes ineligible to Judge that particular CFJ.
\n
\nThe Clerk shall announce the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made.
\n
\nA CFJ is "open" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to that CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is not open is closed.
\n'),(38336,1868,404698,404940,'Whenever thereA CFJ is an open Call for Judgement to which no Player if it has not been assigned as its Judge, the Clerk of the Court shall, as soon as possible after being made aware of this condition, select a Player to be assigned as its Judge and announce eir selection. This selection shall be made from amongst all those Players eligible Judged, or if an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to serve as the Judge of that CFJ. it has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.
\n
\nOnce selectedAs soon as the possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a CFJ, that Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e is Recused recused from that CFJ it or becomes ineligible to Judge that particular CFJ.
\n
\nA CFJ is "open" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to that CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is not open is closed. it.
\n'),(38337,1868,404940,405707,'A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.
\n
\nOther rules may explicitly delay the timing requirement of making assignments, for example with respect to providing the Defendant with response time in a Civil CFJ.
\n
\nrequired by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was eligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the identity of that Player is announced."
\n'),(38338,1868,405707,405984,'A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.
\n
\nOther rules may explicitly delay the timing requirement of making assignments, for example with respect to providing the Defendant with response time in a Civil CFJ.
\n
\nrequired by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was eligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the identity of that Player is announced."
\n'),(38339,1868,405984,406025,'AWhenever a CFJ is open if it that has not been Judged, or if judged has no trial judge assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall as soon as possible assign an outstanding judicial motion pertaining eligible judge to it has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open. by announcement. The assigned judge remains its trial judge until recused.
\n
\nAs soonEvery active player is eligible to be assigned as possible after becoming aware that a trial judge unless made ineligible by the rules. Entities other than active players are always ineligible.
\n
\nIf the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by assigning an open CFJ has no Judge assigned to it, ineligible judge then the assignment stands. In this case, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial Judge. That Player remains may recuse the Trial Judge judge by announcement accompanied by a description of that CFJ until e is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it. eir error.
\n'),(38340,1868,406025,406072,'WheneverAt any time, a CFJ that has not been judged judicial case either has no trial judge assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall as soon as possible assign an eligible judge assigned to it by announcement. The (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge; this is a persistent status that changes only according to the rules. To recuse a judge remains its trial from a case means to deassign em as judge. To assign a judge until recused. to a case implicitly recuses any existing judge.
\n
\nEvery active player is eligible to be assigned asAt any time, a judicial case either does not require a trial judge unless made ineligible by the rules. Entities other than active players are always ineligible. (default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nIf the Clerk ofWhen a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the Courts errs in good faith by assigning an ineligible CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge then by announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL make such an assignment stands. In this case, as soon as possible.
\n
\nExcept where modified by other rules, the Clerk entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the Courts may recuse the judge by announcement accompanied by active first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a description of eir error. judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already assigned.
\n
\nat the
\n'),(38341,1868,406072,406196,' existing judge. judge. A recusal is without cause unless stated otherwise in the rules.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL make such an assignment as soon as possible.
\n
\nExcept where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already assigned.
\n
\nat the
\n'),(38342,1868,406196,406248,' is without with cause unless if and only if stated otherwise in as such by the rules.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL make such an assignment as soon as possible.
\n
\nExcept where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already assigned.
\n
\nat the
\n'),(38343,1868,406248,406288,'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. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any existing judge. A recusal is with cause if and only if stated as such by the rules.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL make such an assignment as soon as possible.
\n
\nExcept where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already assigned.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nat the
\n'),(38344,1868,406288,406341,'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. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any existing judge. A recusal is with cause if and only if stated as such by the rules.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL make such an assignment as soon as possible.
\n
\nExcept where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge if already assigned.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nMaking an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.
\n
\nat the
\n'),(38345,1868,406341,496752,' as judge; this judge. This is a persistent status that changes only according to the rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any existing judge. A recusal is with cause if and only if stated as such by the rules.
\n
\n a judge; this judge. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\n by announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC announcement, and SHALL make such an assignment do so as soon as possible.
\n
\nExcept where modified by other rules, theThe entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players. 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 if of a case to which e is already assigned.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nMaking an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.
\n
\nTo 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.
\n
\nat the
\n'),(38346,1868,496752,497281,'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.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nMaking an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.
\n
\n recusal "with cause" is a recusal defined as judge, if any. A recusal is "with cause" if and only if stated as such by the rules.
\n
\nat at the
\n'),(38347,1868,497281,497441,'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.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nMaking an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.
\n
\n as judge, if any. A recusal is "with cause" if and only if stated as such by the rules. at the
\n
\nat the
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38348,1870,404405,405045,' period commencing every each year at from midnight GMT on the morning of 24 December 24, and concluding at to the beginning of the first Nomic Week Agoran week to commence begin after 2 January 2, is a Holiday.
\n'),(38349,1870,405045,405274,'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.
\n
\nThere exists a Boon known as Shiny New Toy, and an Albatross known as Lump of Coal. For the purposes of this rule, Players with a Stain of at least one Blot are known as Naughty, and Players with a Stain of less than one Blot are known as Nice.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the conclusion of the Holiday described above, the Herald shall award a Shiny New Toy to each Nice Player, and a Lump of Coal to each Naughty player.
\n'),(38350,1871,404541,404942,' selected to judge as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes ineligible to judge be Trial Judge of any future CFJs. If ever Whenever there are no Players eligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ, then all Players made ineligible by solely because of this rule Rule become eligible again.
\n
\nBeing made ineligible to judge a CFJ by this rule does not cause a Player to become ineligible to serve as a Justice on that CFJ. This rule takes precedence over any rule which claims otherwise. again.
\n'),(38351,1871,404942,404985,' e becomes begins to Turn Around And Around. Players who are Turning Around And Around are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs. Whenever
\n
\nWhenever there are no Players eligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ, all Players ineligible solely because of this Rule become eligible again. who are Turning Around And Around cease Turning Around And Around.
\n'),(38352,1871,404985,405223,'Whenever a PlayerOrientation is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e begins to Turn Around And Around. Players who are Turning Around And Around are ineligible to be Trial Judge stuck player switch with values unturned and turned. The Clerk of any future CFJs. the Courts shall maintain and report records for this switch.
\n
\nWhenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs.
\n
\nWhenever there are no Players players eligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ, all Players who are Turning Around And Around cease Turning Around And Around. turned players become unturned.
\n'),(38353,1871,405223,405244,''),(38354,1871,405244,405293,' and turned. The Clerk of the Courts shall maintain and report records for this switch. turned.
\n
\nWhenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs.
\n
\nWhenever there are no players eligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ, all turned players become unturned.
\n'),(38355,1871,405293,405327,'Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and turned.
\n
\nWhenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs.
\n
\nWhenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and there are no players eligible to be Trial Judge assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish a CFJ, Notice of Rotation, specifying at least one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players become unturned.
\n'),(38356,1871,405327,405398,'Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and turned.
\n
\nWhenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs.
\n
\nWhenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players become unturned.
\n
\nThe CotC may switch the Orientation of players e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not at all to turned, without 2 objections.
\n'),(38357,1871,405398,405444,'Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and turned.
\n
\nWhenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs.
\n
\nWhenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players become unturned.
\n
\n may switch flip the Orientation of players e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not at all to turned, without 2 objections.
\n'),(38358,1871,405444,405709,'Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and turned.
\n
\nWheneverWhenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs. CFJs. When a player registers, e is considered turned.
\n
\nWhenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players become unturned.
\n
\n may flip the Orientation of players turn a player e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not at all to turned, all, without 2 objections. objections.
\n
\nIf the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal who is not eligible to judge that CFJ or Appeal solely because e is turned, then that selection shall stand, unless the Clerk of the Courts points out eir error and makes a new selection before the selected Player returns Judgement.
\n'),(38359,1871,405709,405780,'WheneverWhen a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. Turned players are A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs. When a player registers, CFJ if e is considered turned. was turned when it was called.
\n
\nWhenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall publishWhen a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players become unturned. player registers, e becomes turned.
\n
\nThe CotC Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a player player. E is encouraged to do this only if e expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all, without 2 objections. all.
\n
\nIfWhen the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting publishes a Player to Judge Notice of Rotation, all players become unturned. The Clerk of the Courts shall only do so when all open CFJs without a CFJ or Appeal who is not Trial Judge have no players eligible to judge that CFJ or Appeal be assigned, and at least one of them has at least one player ineligible solely because to being turned; e is turned, then that selection shall stand, unless the Clerk of list all CFJs in the Courts points out eir error first set, and makes a new selection before at least one in the second. However, failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the selected Player returns Judgement. Notice of effect.
\n'),(38360,1871,405780,405901,'When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if e was turned when it was called.
\n
\nWhen a player registers, e becomes turned.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a player. E is encouraged to do this only if e expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.
\n
\n one (and at least one such player for it) in the second. However, failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice of effect.
\n'),(38361,1871,405901,405917,'When aEach player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if e was turned when it was called. either standing, sitting, or lying down.
\n
\nWhen aA player registers, e becomes turned. may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice versa, by announcement.
\n
\nThe ClerkWhen a player is selected as Trial Judge of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a player. E CFJ, e changes to sitting. A player is encouraged ineligible to do this only become Trial Judge of a CFJ if e expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or is not at all. standing.
\n
\nWhen a player registers, e is lying down.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) change a player to lying down. E is encouraged to do this only if e expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.
\n
\nWhen the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all sitting players become unturned. change to standing. The Clerk of the Courts shall only do so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least one player ineligible solely to being turned; not standing; e shall list all CFJs in the first set, and at least one (and in the second (noting at least one such player for it) in of the second. relevant players). However, failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice of effect.
\n'),(38362,1871,405917,406026,'Each player is either standing, sitting, or lying down.
\n
\nA player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice versa, by announcement.
\n
\nWhen a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e changes to sitting. A player is ineligible to become Trial Judge of a CFJ if e is not standing.
\n
\nWhen a player registers, e is lying down.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) change a player to lying down. E is encouraged to do this only if e expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.
\n
\n all open CFJs without a Trial Judge awaiting trial judge assignment have no players eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least one player ineligible solely to not standing; e shall list all CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the second (noting at least one of the relevant players). However, failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice of effect.
\n'),(38363,1871,406026,406073,' or lying down. supine; this status is known as eir posture. The CotC\'s report includes each player\'s posture. When an entity becomes a player, e is initially supine. A player CAN change emself from sitting to supine, or from supine to sitting, by announcement.
\n
\nA supine player may change emself from is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any judicial case. The CotC SHALL NOT assign a sitting player to lying down, or vice versa, be the judge of any judicial case. If the CotC has assigned a sitting player as judge, and that player is still the judge of that case, the CotC CAN recuse that judge from that case by announcement.
\n
\nWhen the CotC assigns a standing player is selected as Trial Judge judge of a CFJ, e changes to sitting. A judicial case, the player is ineligible to become Trial Judge of becomes sitting, except in the situation discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a CFJ if e is 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 standing. any of the earlier ones. The CotC SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being linked are closely related in their subject matter.
\n
\nWhen a player registers, e is lying down.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections)The CotC CAN change a player to lying down. E is encouraged to do this only if e expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.
\n
\nWhen the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all sitting players change to standing. standing by announcement. The Clerk of the Courts shall only CotC SHALL NOT do so when this unless there is a judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all CFJs awaiting trial judge assignment have no players eligible entities qualified to be assigned, so assigned are sitting players, and at least one of them has at least one player ineligible solely to not standing; e shall list all CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the second (noting at least one of immediately afterwards (in the relevant players). However, failing same announcement) assigns a judge to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice of effect. that case.
\n'),(38364,1871,406073,406117,'Each player is either standing, sitting, or supine; this statusPosture is known as eir posture. The CotC\'s report includes each player\'s posture. When an entity becomes a player, e is initially supine. A player CAN change emself switch with values Standing, Sitting, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nA player may flip eir posture from sitting Sitting to supine, Supine, or from supine to sitting, vice versa, by announcement.
\n
\nA supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any judicial case. The CotC SHALL NOT assign a sitting player to be the judge of any judicial case. If the CotC has assigned a sitting player as judge, and that player is still the judge of that case, the CotC CAN recuse that judge from that case by announcement.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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 sitting players, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case.
\n'),(38365,1871,406117,406289,'Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nA player may flip eir posture from Sitting to Supine, or vice versa, by announcement.
\n
\n case. The CotC SHALL NOT assign a A sitting player is poorly qualified to be the judge of any judicial case. If the CotC has assigned a sitting player as judge, and that player is still the judge of that case, the CotC CAN recuse that judge from that case by announcement. any judicial case.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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 sitting players, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case.
\n'),(38366,1871,406289,406290,' Sitting, Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts. Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nA player may flip eir posture from Sitting to Supine, or vice versa, by announcement.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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 sitting players, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case.
\n'),(38367,1871,406290,406292,'Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nHawkishness 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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 sitting players, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case.
\n'),(38368,1871,406292,406294,'Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nHawkishness 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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 sitting players, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case.
\n
\nWhen the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.
\n'),(38369,1871,406294,406315,'Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nHawkishness 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\n are sitting players, poorly qualified, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case.
\n
\nWhen the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.
\n'),(38370,1871,406315,432249,' A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nHawkishness 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.
\n'),(38371,1871,432249,432355,' by announcement. announcement. Changes to posture are secured.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nHawkishness 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nWhen the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.
\n'),(38372,1871,432355,432368,' player switch with values Standing, Sitting, Leaning, and Supine (default), switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts. A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement. Changes to posture are secured. Courts, with the following values:
\n
\nA supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly* Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to be assigned as judge of any judicial case. judge.
\n
\nHawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by* Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but will generally become qualified when the Clerk of CotC rotates the Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement. bench.
\n
\nA 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* Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of any equity case. judge, but are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.
\n
\nWhen 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* Supine (default). Supine players 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. unqualified to judge.
\n
\nThe CotC CAN change all sitting playersChanges 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 posture are poorly qualified, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case. secured.
\n
\nWhenA player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nWhen the CotC recuses assigns a player as judge, that player becomes sitting.
\n
\nThe CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so 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.
\n
\nWhen the CotC recuses a player with cause, e SHALL flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.
\n'),(38373,1871,432368,432372,'Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the following values:
\n
\n* Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.
\n
\n* Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the bench.
\n
\n* Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.
\n
\n* Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.
\n
\nChanges to posture are secured.
\n
\nA player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nWhen the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes sitting.
\n
\nThe CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so 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.
\n
\n announcement within one week. in a timely fashion.
\n'),(38374,1871,432372,496753,'Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the following values:
\n
\n* Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.
\n
\n* Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the bench.
\n
\n* Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.
\n
\n* Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.
\n
\nChanges to posture are secured.
\n
\nA player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nWhen the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes sitting.
\n
\nThe CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so 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.
\n
\n a non-supine player with cause, e SHALL flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely fashion.
\n'),(38375,1871,496753,496901,'Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the following values:
\n
\n* Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.
\n
\n* Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the bench.
\n
\n* Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.
\n
\n* Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.
\n
\nChanges to posture are secured.
\n
\nA player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
\n
\nWhen the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes sitting.
\n
\nThe CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so 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.
\n
\n e SHALL CAN flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely fashion.
\n'),(38376,1887,404619,404700,' the following standard Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure shall be used. Details
\n
\nThe details specified herein are defaults which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations. the Default Auction Procedure.
\n
\n(a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting bids and announcing the result of the Auction. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.
\n
\n(c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction cannot take place.
\n
\n(d) Number of Items: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more identical items. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of items up for bid in the Auction.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
\n
\n(g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or after its end. (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction Currency. (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.
\n
\n(i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started, there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier- submitted bids.
\n
\nThe Final Auction Price is: (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction; (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid uncancelled Bids.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.
\n
\n shall transfer pay out an Auctioned item to the winning Bidder as soon as possible after the bill for that item is paid.
\n'),(38377,1887,404700,404719,'When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
\n
\nThe details specified herein are for the Default Auction Procedure.
\n
\n(a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting bids and announcing the result of the Auction. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.
\n
\n(c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction cannot take place.
\n
\n of Items: Lots: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more identical items. lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of items lots up for bid in the Auction.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
\n
\n(g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or after its end. (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction Currency. (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.
\n
\n(i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started, there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier- submitted bids.
\n
\nThe Final Auction Price is: (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction; (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid uncancelled Bids.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.
\n
\n the Auctioneer owner of the Auctioned items shall pay out an incur a debt of one Auctioned item lot of items to the winning Bidder as soon as possible after when the bill for that item lot is paid.
\n'),(38378,1887,404719,404843,'When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
\n
\nThe details specified herein are for the Default Auction Procedure.
\n
\n Auction. Unless otherwise specified, The Auctioneer is the Speaker shall Player who initiates the Auction. If the Rules require or allow an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify which Player shall initiate it, then the Auctioneer. Speaker shall initiate it.
\n
\n(b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.
\n
\n(c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction cannot take place.
\n
\n(d) Number of Lots: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
\n
\n(g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or after its end. (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction Currency. (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.
\n
\n(i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started, there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier- submitted bids.
\n
\nThe Final Auction Price is: (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction; (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid uncancelled Bids.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.
\n
\nUnless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the winning Bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.
\n'),(38379,1887,404843,404907,'When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, the Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
\n
\nThe details specified herein are for the Default Auction Procedure.
\n
\n(a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting bids and announcing the result of the Auction. The Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the Auction. If the Rules require or allow an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall initiate it.
\n
\n Auction. On Hold status Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.
\n
\n(c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction cannot take place.
\n
\n(d) Number of Lots: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
\n
\n(g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or after its end. (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction Currency. (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.
\n
\n(i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started, there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier- submitted bids.
\n
\nThe Final Auction Price is: (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction; (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid uncancelled Bids.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.
\n
\nUnless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the winning Bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.
\n'),(38380,1887,404907,405001,' is required to be held and the procedure is not defined elsewhere, specified, the Auctioneer shall may select a rules-defined Auction Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used, the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
\n
\nThe details specified herein are for the Default Auction Procedure. Procedure is as follows:
\n
\n Auctioneer: The the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and announcing the result of the Auction. The Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the Auction. If If the Rules require or allow (or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or may) initiate it.
\n
\n Bidders: Every every Player not on Hold may Bid bid in an Auction. Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid. bid.
\n
\n Currency: Each each Auction is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring providing for a particular Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction cannot take place.
\n
\n of Lots: Each lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
\n
\n Auction: The the Auction begins at the time when the first correct and legal announcement that an Auction has begun is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with made by a Player authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must contain: (1) the identity of the Auctioneer, Auctioneer; (2) the Auction Currency, Currency; (3) the number of items, items being Auctioned; and (4) the value of the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required elements is missing from the minimum possible value of a bid. announcement initiating the Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid Auction stands, then the announcement initiating the Auction is equal deemed to have been legal and correct for the MUQ purposes of the Rules. If the Auction Currency. does not stand, it is deemed not to have occurred.
\n
\n(g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires during Starting Bid: the Auction. A Starting Bid is a public message, announcing that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and the amount minimum possible value of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) The Bid is a bid. If not made before the start of otherwise specified, the Auction, or after its end. (2) The amount Starting Bid is a multiple of equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency. (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid. Currency.
\n
\n(h) Canceling Bids: A Bid Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of eir bid. Each bidder may be cancelled by make as many bids as e likes during the Auction. A bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before its Bidder by publicly posting such, clearly identifying end; (2) the Bid to be cancelled, while amount of the bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction Currency; and (3) the amount of the bid is in progress. no less than the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started, there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have passed without Cancelling bids: a valid Bid higher than bidder may cancel eir bid while the Nth-highest Bid (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction shall end 14 days after is in progress by publically identifying the Auction has started, if it has not ended earlier. bid to be cancelled.
\n
\n(j) Winning Bids: When End of Auction: the Auction ends, ends if any of the winning Bids are following occur: (1) one week has passed from the N largest uncancelled valid Bids start of the Auction, and no bids have been made; or (2) a bid has been made in that auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if the Auction, and 72 hours have passed without there were less than being a change in the N valid uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken highest bids in favor of earlier- submitted bids. the Auction; or (3) 14 days have passed since the Auction began.
\n
\nThe Final(k) Winning bids: when the Auction Price is: (1) The amount of ends, the winning bids are the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or more valid largest uncancelled Bids valid bids in the auction; (2) The Starting Bid, Auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were fewer less than N valid uncancelled Bids. bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier- submitted bids. If there were no bids in the Auction, then the Auction has no winner.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after(l) Final Auction Price: the end Final Auction Price is either: (1) the amount of the Auction, Nth highest bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled bids in the Auctioneer shall announce auction; or (2) the winning Bids and issue to each winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids. Starting Bid, if there were greater than zero but fewer than N valid uncancelled bids.
\n
\nUnless(m) Billing for winning bids: as soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning bids and issue to each winning bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning bids.
\n
\n(n) Defaulting: a winning bidder has a week from the time e is billed by the Auctioneer for a winning bid e made to satisfy the debt arising from that bid. If e does not do so, e commits the Class 2 Infraction of Defaulting (reportable by the Auctioneer), and thereafter loses eir right to purchase the Auctioned item by paying the debt arising from that bid. As soon as possible after a winning bidder defaults on a bid, the Auctioneer shall Order the owner of the items being Auctioned (normally the Bank) to forgive the unsatisfied debt arising from the bid.
\n
\n(o) Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the winning Bidder bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.
\n'),(38381,1887,405001,405037,'When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used, the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
\n
\nThe Default Auction Procedure is as follows:
\n
\n(a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require (or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or may) initiate it.
\n
\n every active Player not on Hold may bid in an Auction. Auction; non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir bid.
\n
\n(c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction cannot take place.
\n
\n(d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must contain: (1) the identity of the Auctioneer; (2) the Auction Currency; (3) the number of items being Auctioned; and (4) the value of the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required elements is missing from the announcement initiating the Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands, then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to have been legal and correct for the purposes of the Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to have occurred.
\n
\n(g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
\n
\n(h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during the Auction. A bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before its end; (2) the amount of the bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction Currency; and (3) the amount of the bid is no less than the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(i) Cancelling bids: a bidder may cancel eir bid while the Auction is in progress by publically identifying the bid to be cancelled.
\n
\n(j) End of Auction: the Auction ends if any of the following occur: (1) one week has passed from the start of the Auction, and no bids have been made; or (2) a bid has been made in the Auction, and 72 hours have passed without there being a change in the N highest bids in the Auction; or (3) 14 days have passed since the Auction began.
\n
\n(k) Winning bids: when the Auction ends, the winning bids are the N largest uncancelled valid bids in the Auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid uncancelled bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier- submitted bids. If there were no bids in the Auction, then the Auction has no winner.
\n
\n(l) Final Auction Price: the Final Auction Price is either: (1) the amount of the Nth highest bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled bids in the auction; or (2) the Starting Bid, if there were greater than zero but fewer than N valid uncancelled bids.
\n
\n(m) Billing for winning bids: as soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning bids and issue to each winning bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning bids.
\n
\n(n) Defaulting: a winning bidder has a week from the time e is billed by the Auctioneer for a winning bid e made to satisfy the debt arising from that bid. If e does not do so, e commits the Class 2 Infraction of Defaulting (reportable by the Auctioneer), and thereafter loses eir right to purchase the Auctioned item by paying the debt arising from that bid. As soon as possible after a winning bidder defaults on a bid, the Auctioneer shall Order the owner of the items being Auctioned (normally the Bank) to forgive the unsatisfied debt arising from the bid.
\n
\n(o) Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the winning bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.
\n'),(38382,1887,405037,405178,'When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used, the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.
\n
\nThe Default Auction Procedure is as follows:
\n
\n(a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require (or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or may) initiate it.
\n
\n(b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction; non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir bid.
\n
\n(c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction cannot take place.
\n
\n(d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of lots up for bid in the Auction.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must contain: (1) the identity of the Auctioneer; (2) the Auction Currency; (3) the number of items being Auctioned; and (4) the value of the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required elements is missing from the announcement initiating the Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands, then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to have been legal and correct for the purposes of the Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to have occurred.
\n
\n(g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.
\n
\n(h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during the Auction. A bid is only valid if it satisfies the following conditions: (1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before its end; (2) the amount of the bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction Currency; and (3) the amount of the bid is no less than the Starting Bid.
\n
\n(i) Cancelling bids: a bidder may cancel eir bid while the Auction is in progress by publically identifying the bid to be cancelled.
\n
\n(j) End of Auction: the Auction ends if any of the following occur: (1) one week has passed from the start of the Auction, and no bids have been made; or (2) a bid has been made in the Auction, and 72 hours have passed without there being a change in the N highest bids in the Auction; or (3) 14 days have passed since the Auction began.
\n
\n(k) Winning bids: when the Auction ends, the winning bids are the N largest uncancelled valid bids in the Auction (or all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid uncancelled bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier- submitted bids. If there were no bids in the Auction, then the Auction has no winner.
\n
\n(l) Final Auction Price: the Final Auction Price is either: (1) the amount of the Nth highest bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled bids in the auction; or (2) the Starting Bid, if there were greater than zero but fewer than N valid uncancelled bids.
\n
\n(m) Billing for winning bids: as soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning bids and issue to each winning bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning bids.
\n
\n Auctioned (normally the Bank) to forgive the unsatisfied debt arising from the bid.
\n
\n(o) Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the winning bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.
\n'),(38383,1888,404620,404701,'If anThe Auction Procedure for a Private Auction is designated by the rules same as being Private, then the Default Auction Procedure except that Bids may only made by sending them privately to the Auctioneer. This rule takes precedence over the standard Auction procedure. Auctioneer.
\n'),(38384,1888,404701,405052,' Procedure except that Bids with the following modifications:
\n
\n(a) Bidders: any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.
\n
\n(b) Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then eir bids must be made by sending them publicly. Otherwise, bidders must send eir bids privately to the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(c) Canceling Bids: if a Bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then eir Bids must be canceled publicly. Otherwise, bidders must cancel eir bids privately to the Auctioneer.
\n'),(38385,1891,404502,405810,'(a) A Proposal may contain one or more Orders.
\n
\n Orders, and are deemed to have been executed by that Proposal, and are deemed to have been executed Proposal as of the date of the proclamation of the Proposal\'s adoption.
\n
\n(c) Legislative Orders may not be stayed, vacated, or amended except: (1) by a subsequent Legislative Order; (2) by a Judicial Order issued only after a judicial finding that the Proposal containing the Legislative Order was not adopted, was barred from taking effect, or was invalid; or (3) by the Clerk of the Courts, but only for the purpose of staying such an Order during the pendency of a dispute which might reasonably lead to a judicial finding of the sort mentioned in subdivision (c)(2) of this Rule.
\n'),(38386,1892,404455,404827,'There exists the Office of Treasuror, whose responsibility itThe Treasuror is to record various information regarding Budgets, Currencies and Properties, an office; its holder is recordkeepor of generic information, excluding holdings, of currencies, and to maintain is responsible for setting the Treasuror\'s Budget. values of compensations.
\n
\n each Currency:
\n
\n(i) its name; (ii) its Mintor; (iii) its Recordkeepor; currency, its name, mintor, recordkeepor, and (iv) its MUQ. Minimum Unit Quantity.
\n'),(38387,1893,404456,405015,' and 200 40 Stems inclusive. Additionally, the Budget shall contain the values all of the following compensations:
\n
\n(i) the Minimum Income; (ii) the Judicial Salary; (iii) the Winner\'s Stipend; (iv) the Distributor\'s Gratuity; (v) the Speaker\'s Gratuity; and (vi) for each wage-earning Office, the Salary of that Office.
\n
\nA compensation shall be not less than 0 nor more than 4, and must be an integral multiple of 0.1. The arithmetic mean of all compensations shall be no greater than 2.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules indicate that one of the above compensations is to be paid out, the amount to be paid out shall be the product of the value of the compensation and the value of the BOS (as set in the latest Budget).
\n
\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain a schedule that, for each Bank Currency, shall indicate the amount of the New Player Award for that Currency. The amount of the New Player Award for a Bank Currency shall not be less than the Minimum Unit Quantity of that Currency.
\n
\nWhile holding the Office as Electee, the Treasuror may amend eir Budget, With Support.
\n'),(38388,1893,405015,405031,'The Treasuror\'s Budget shall contain the Basic Officer Salary (BOS), an amount between 0 and 40 Stems inclusive. Additionally, the Budget shall contain the values all of the following compensations:
\n
\n(i) the Minimum Income; (ii) the Judicial Salary; (iii) the Winner\'s Stipend; (iv) the Distributor\'s Gratuity; (v) the Speaker\'s Gratuity; and (vi) for each wage-earning Office, the Salary of that Office.
\n
\nA compensation shall be not less than 0 nor more than 4, and must be an integral multiple of 0.1. The arithmetic mean of all compensations shall be no greater than 2.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules indicate that one of the above compensations is to be paid out, the amount to be paid out shall be the product of the value of the compensation and the value of the BOS (as set in the latest Budget).
\n
\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain a schedule that, for each Bank Currency, shall indicate the amount of the New Player Award for that Currency. The amount of the New Player Award for a Bank Currency shall not be less than the Minimum Unit Quantity of that Currency.
\n
\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain the Foul Weather Factor and the Weather Intensity Factor. Both are numbers between 0 and 10 inclusive that are evenly divisible by 0.1.
\n
\nWhile holding the Office as Electee, the Treasuror may amend eir Budget, With Support.
\n'),(38389,1893,405031,405120,'The Treasuror\'s Budget shall contain the Basic Officer Salary (BOS), an amount between 0 and 40 Stems inclusive. Additionally, the Budget shall contain the values all of the following compensations:
\n
\n the Winner\'s Stipend; (iv) the Distributor\'s Gratuity; (v) (iv) the Speaker\'s Gratuity; and (vi) (v) for each wage-earning Office, the Salary of that Office.
\n
\nA compensation shall be not less than 0 nor more than 4, and must be an integral multiple of 0.1. The arithmetic mean of all compensations shall be no greater than 2.
\n
\nWhenever the Rules indicate that one of the above compensations is to be paid out, the amount to be paid out shall be the product of the value of the compensation and the value of the BOS (as set in the latest Budget).
\n
\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain a schedule that, for each Bank Currency, shall indicate the amount of the New Player Award for that Currency. The amount of the New Player Award for a Bank Currency shall not be less than the Minimum Unit Quantity of that Currency.
\n
\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain the Foul Weather Factor and the Weather Intensity Factor. Both are numbers between 0 and 10 inclusive that are evenly divisible by 0.1.
\n
\nWhile holding the Office as Electee, the Treasuror may amend eir Budget, With Support.
\n'),(38390,1905,404446,404824,'The set of Players consisting Cabinet, or Inner Cabinet, consists of the Speaker and all current Electees electees to Offices is called office. The Outer Cabinet consists of all Oligarchs who are not members of the Inner Cabinet.
\n'),(38391,1905,404824,405306,' all Oligarchs Shareholders who are not members of the Inner Cabinet.
\n'),(38392,1905,405306,405383,''),(38393,1908,404604,404789,'Property which is possessed by an entity which has no Executor, (the Dissolute) without a Prime Executor is deemed "abandoned". to be abandoned as long as it is possessed by the Dissolute.
\n
\n Notary shall be is a Limited Executor of any entity which possesses abandoned Property, and each Dissolute, on behalf of that entity whom e may:
\n
\n transfer Property property owned by that entity em to any entity to which the dissolute entity owes creditor of any of eir debts, for the purpose of making partial or complete payment on those debts;
\n
\n to it; em;
\n
\n transfer Property property owned by it em to the Bank; Bank, unless the Dissolute was a player before eir property was abandoned; or
\n
\n transfer Property property to satisfy the Dissolute\'s Will, provided that the Dissolute was not Silent when e lost eir Prime Executor and all debts for that type of Property property that the entity Dissolute had when it e lost its eir Prime Executor have been satisfied.
\n
\nIf an any entity which possesses possessing property of any sort dies, dissolves, or otherwise ceases to exist, that entity is nonetheless considered to continue shall be deemed to exist for the purpose of those Rules pertaining to the possession and disposition of Property, for as long as it continues to possess Property. e possesses property.
\n'),(38394,1908,404789,405195,'Property possessed by an entity (the Dissolute) without a Prime Executor is deemed to be abandoned as long as it is possessed by the Dissolute.
\n
\nThe Notary is a Limited Executor of each Dissolute, on behalf of whom e may:
\n
\n(1) transfer property owned by em to any creditor of any of eir debts, for the purpose of making partial or complete payment on those debts;
\n
\n(2) forgive in part or in full any debts owed to em;
\n
\n the Bank, Mintor or Recordkeepor of that Property, unless the Dissolute was a player before eir property was abandoned; or
\n
\n(4) transfer property to satisfy the Dissolute\'s Will, provided that the Dissolute was not Silent when e lost eir Prime Executor and all debts for that type of property that the Dissolute had when e lost eir Prime Executor have been satisfied.
\n
\nIf any entity possessing property dies, dissolves, or otherwise ceases to exist, that entity shall be deemed to exist for as long as e possesses property.
\n'),(38395,1909,404632,404847,'There exists the Office ofThe Payroll Clerk, whose responsibility it Clerk is to be Recordkeepor for an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Stems and to pay is responsible for paying out Salaries. salaries and other compensations.
\n'),(38396,1910,404633,404791,' Currency. The The MUQ of Stems is 1. The The Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.
\n
\n if either the transferor or at least one of the transferee following is the Bank. All other transfers of Stems are prohibited. true:
\n
\nHowever, in(1) either the case that an Organization somehow obtains Stems, it shall nevertheless be allowed transferor or the transferee is the Bank; (2) the Stems are to transfer those be transferred from a Dissolute to Players, as long as this is done within seven days a player who has the privilege of when Looting the Corpse of that Dissolute; or (3) the transferor is an Organization, and the Stems to be transferred had not been held continuously by the Organization for one week.
\n
\nAll other transfers of Stems are obtained. prohibited.
\n'),(38397,1910,404791,404983,'Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.
\n
\nTransfers of Stems are permitted only if at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n one week. week; (4) either the transferor or the transferee is a Money Grubbing Contest, and the regulations of the Contest(s) involved in the transfer specifically permit the transfer.
\n
\nAll other transfers of Stems are prohibited.
\n'),(38398,1910,404983,405041,'Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.
\n
\nTransfers of Stems are permitted only if at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n the transferor transferee is an Organization, and the Stems to be transferred had not been held continuously by the Organization for one week; a Group; (4) either the transferor or the transferee is a Money Grubbing Contest, and the regulations of the Contest(s) involved in the transfer specifically permit the transfer.
\n
\nAll other transfers of Stems are prohibited.
\n'),(38399,1910,405041,405122,'Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.
\n
\nTransfers of Stems are permitted only if at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n Dissolute; or (3) the transferee is a Group; (4) either the transferor or the transferee is a Money Grubbing Contest, and the regulations of the Contest(s) involved in the transfer specifically permit the transfer.
\n
\nAll other transfers of Stems are prohibited.
\n'),(38400,1922,404596,404773,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices.
\n'),(38401,1922,404773,404932,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(d) Filthy Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. Offices.
\n
\n(e) Groovy, which may be awarded to any Player Winning the Game at least once since the introduction of this Patent Title and demonstrating eir total coolness by Winning the Game at least once by each of at least three distinct win conditions.
\n'),(38402,1922,404932,405051,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(e) Groovy, which may be awarded to any Player Winning the Game at least once since the introduction of this Patent Title and demonstrating eir total coolness by Winning the Game at least once by each of at least three distinct win conditions.
\n'),(38403,1922,405051,405121,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(e) Groovy, which may be awarded to any Player Winning the Game at least once since the introduction of this Patent Title and demonstrating eir total coolness by Winning the Game at least once by each of at least three distinct win conditions.
\n'),(38404,1922,405121,405288,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(e) Admiral, to be awarded to a Team Captain when eir Team achieves a Team Win.
\n'),(38405,1922,405288,405353,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(e) Admiral, to be awarded to a Team Captain when eir Team achieves a Team Win.
\n'),(38406,1922,405353,405381,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(e) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n'),(38407,1922,405381,405467,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production, distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent medicines.
\n
\n(c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(d)(c) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(e)(d) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n'),(38408,1922,405467,405495,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for one Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\nThree players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as 1, with 2 Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\nAnd so we don\'t the name of Bard debase, A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(d) Three Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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. player.
\n
\n(e) Hyperactive, to be awarded to any player who has more than 10 proposals pass in one week.
\n'),(38409,1922,405495,405686,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n for one the Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it.
\n
\n as 1, one, with 2 two Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.
\n
\n with 3 three Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus 2 two Bards) make a Bard retire.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.
\n
\n(d) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n(e) Hyperactive, to be awarded to any player who has more than 10 proposals pass in one week. player.
\n'),(38410,1922,405686,405748,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.
\n'),(38411,1922,405748,405773,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game. The Herald\'s report shall record how the player won.
\n'),(38412,1922,405773,405868,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game. The Herald\'s report shall record how the player won.
\n'),(38413,1922,405868,406121,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n game. The The Herald\'s monthly report shall record how the player won.
\n'),(38414,1922,406121,406240,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n any player person who wins the game. The Herald\'s monthly report shall record how the player won.
\n'),(38415,1922,406240,406273,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n report shall record includes how the player won.
\n'),(38416,1922,406273,406278,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n Herald\'s monthly report includes how the player won.
\n'),(38417,1922,406278,406312,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n(e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded to any player who wins the game. If the number of players bearing this title is greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this title is revoked from the Speaker.
\n'),(38418,1922,406312,406353,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.
\n'),(38419,1922,406353,406383,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded 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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n the game. 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.
\n'),(38420,1922,406383,406444,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a particular Office continuously for the specified duration. Each Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.
\n
\n awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n(e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded 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.
\n'),(38421,1922,406444,406491,''),(38422,1922,406491,406510,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n 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.
\n'),(38423,1922,406510,432322,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.
\n'),(38424,1922,432322,432436,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.
\n
\n(g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions.
\n'),(38425,1922,432436,496932,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n of players persons bearing this title is greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from the Speaker.
\n
\n the Clerk of the Courts or the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any player who publishes deregistered in a Cantus Cygneus. Writ of FAGE.
\n
\n(g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions.
\n'),(38426,1922,496932,497221,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n title. If If the number of persons bearing this title is greater than title. If the number of Prerogatives defined by the persons bearing this title is rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from the Speaker.
\n
\n(f) (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
\n
\n(g) (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions.
\n'),(38427,1922,497221,497319,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n is title. If greater than the number of persons bearing this title is Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all rules, non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from all non-players; any player who would be Speaker if the player wasn\'t inactive, until the number of persons bearing this title is no longer greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from the Speaker. (f)
\n
\n(f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE. (g)
\n
\n(g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions.
\n'),(38428,1922,497319,497460,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n(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 persons bearing this title is greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from any player who would be Speaker if the player wasn\'t inactive, until the number of persons bearing this title is no longer greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from the Speaker.
\n
\n(f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
\n
\n(g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions.
\n
\n(h) Cassandra, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam, thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of other players.
\n'),(38429,1922,497460,497461,'The following are Patent Titles:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nThree 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.
\n
\nAnd 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.
\n
\nBut lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.
\n
\n(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 persons bearing this title is greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from any player who would be Speaker if the player wasn\'t inactive, until the number of persons bearing this title is no longer greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from the Speaker.
\n
\n(f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.
\n
\n(g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions.
\n
\n(h) Cassandra, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam, thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of other players.
\n
\n(h) Missed Congeniality, to be awarded to persons who gain the ability to make arbitrary changes to Rules with a power less than 2 by announcement, but lose the ability before gaining the ability to make such changes to higher-powered rules.
\n'),(38430,1923,404595,404970,'The following are Unique Patent Titles:
\n
\n(b)(a) Robespierre, which shall automatically be awarded to the Player who called for a Revolt, it the Revolt succeeds.
\n
\n(c)(b) Miscreant, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player who has at least ten Blots and has a greater number of Blots than any other Player, if there is such a Player. It shall automatically be revoked if either condition becomes false.
\n
\n(d) Maniac, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player submitting an Insane Proposal on which no one votes FOR.
\n
\n(e)(c) Pugachev, which shall automatically be awarded to the player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.
\n'),(38431,1923,404970,404988,'The following are Unique Patent Titles:
\n
\n Revolt, it if the Revolt succeeds.
\n
\n(b) Miscreant, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player who has at least ten Blots and has a greater number of Blots than any other Player, if there is such a Player. It shall automatically be revoked if either condition becomes false.
\n
\n(c) Pugachev, which shall automatically be awarded to the player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.
\n'),(38432,1928,404639,404852,'There exists the Office of Scorekeepor, whose responsibility itThe Scorekeepor is an office; its holder is to keep responsible for keeping track of Scores. scores.
\n
\n Scorekeepor\'s Weekly Report includes shall include the Score score of each current Player, registered player, as well as any changes thereto since the last posting of the Report.
\n'),(38433,1928,404852,405123,' of scores. scores and Teams.
\n
\n registered player, Player and all Team Scores as well as any changes thereto to either since the last posting of the Report.
\n'),(38434,1929,404640,404722,'A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness, measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since the last Win has a Score of zero Points.
\n
\nThe Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased) or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the affected Player\'s Score.
\n
\nSuch a notification must meet the following requirements, else it is ineffective: -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event -- It must unambiguously describe the event -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty -- It must be the first such notification for that specific event
\n
\n of 200 100 Points or more is a Win Condition. If at any time a Player Wins the Game, all Player\'s Scores shall instantly be set to zero.
\n'),(38435,1929,404722,405124,' last Team Win has a Score of zero Points.
\n
\nThe Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased) or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the affected Player\'s Score.
\n
\nSuch a notification must meet the following requirements, else it is ineffective: -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event -- It must unambiguously describe the event -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty -- It must be the first such notification for that specific event
\n
\nHaving a Score of 100 Points or more is a Win Condition. If at any time a Player Wins the Game, all Player\'s Scores shall instantly be set to zero.
\n'),(38436,1929,405124,405139,'A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness, measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since the last Team Win has a Score of zero Points.
\n
\nThe Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased) or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the affected Player\'s Score.
\n
\n first such valid notification for that specific event
\n'),(38437,1929,405139,405270,'A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness, measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since the last Team Win has a Score of zero Points.
\n
\nThe Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased) or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the affected Player\'s Score.
\n
\nSuch a notification must meet the following requirements, else it is ineffective: -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event -- It must unambiguously describe the event -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific event
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is invalid and points do not change.
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged later, then the player may be penalized/awarded a number of points equal to the original award/penalty.
\n'),(38438,1929,405270,405339,' last Team Win Score Reset has a Score of zero Points.
\n
\nThe Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased) or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the affected Player\'s Score.
\n
\nSuch a notification must meet the following requirements, else it is ineffective: -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event -- It must unambiguously describe the event -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific event
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is invalid and points do not change.
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged later, then the player may be penalized/awarded a number of points equal to the original award/penalty.
\n'),(38439,1930,404641,404974,'If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime, e may be Penalized a number of Points equal to the Class of the Crime times 2.
\n
\nIf a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n
\nIf a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized 5 Points.
\n
\nIf a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.
\n
\nIf a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded 15 Points.
\n
\nIf a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized 10 Points.
\n
\nIf a Player submits a Proposal which is Adopted, e may be Awarded a number of Points equal to twice the number of AGAINST Votes cast on that Proposal.
\n
\nIf a Player submits an Insane Proposal which is Adopted, e may be Awarded 5 Points, in addition to any other Awards for that particular Proposal.
\n
\nIf a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may be Awarded 2 Points.
\n
\nIf a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge may be Awarded 5 Points
\n
\nIf a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge may be Penalized 5 Points.
\n
\nIf a Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.
\n
\nIf a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n'),(38440,1930,404974,405019,'If(a) If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime, e may be Penalized a number of Points equal to the Class of the Crime times 2.
\n
\nIf(b) If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n
\nIf(c) If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized 5 Points.
\n
\nIf(d) If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.
\n
\nIf(e) If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded 15 Points.
\n
\nIf(f) If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized 10 Points.
\n
\nIf(g) If a Player submits a Disinterested Proposal which is Adopted, e may be Awarded a number of Points equal to twice the number of AGAINST Votes cast on 1 Point, plus 1 Point for each vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.
\n
\nIf(h) If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST a particular submits an Interested Proposal that e did not write or Propose, which is Adopted, e may be Awarded 2 Points. 4 Points, plus 1 Point for each vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.
\n
\nIf(i) If a Judgement Player is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may be Awarded 5 Points 2 Points.
\n
\nIf(j) If a Judgement is Overturned Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge may be Penalized Awarded 5 Points. Points
\n
\nIf(k) If a Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the 7 days prior to gaining it, e original Judge may be Awarded Penalized 5 Points.
\n
\nIf(l) If a Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.
\n
\n(m) If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n'),(38441,1930,405019,405080,' Player is found Guilty of wins a Crime, contested Election, e may be Penalized a number of Points equal to the Class of the Crime times 2. Awarded 10 Points.
\n
\n Player wins a contested Election, Resigns from an Office, e may be Awarded 10 Penalized 5 Points.
\n
\n Player Resigns from an Office, is Impeached, e may be Penalized 5 15 Points.
\n
\n a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized Awarded 15 Points.
\n
\n Revolt succeeds, fails, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded 15 Penalized 10 Points.
\n
\n a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player submits a Disinterested Proposal which is Adopted, e may be Penalized 10 Points. Awarded 1 Point, plus 1 Point for each vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.
\n
\n submits a Disinterested an Interested Proposal which is Adopted, e may be Awarded 1 Point, 4 Points, plus 1 Point for each vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.
\n
\n Player submits an Interested Proposal which is Adopted, the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may be Awarded 4 Points, plus 1 Point for each vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal. 2 Points.
\n
\n a Player Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e original Judge may be Awarded 2 Points. 5 Points
\n
\n is Sustained Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge may be Awarded Penalized 5 Points Points.
\n
\n a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during the original Judge 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Penalized Awarded 5 Points.
\n
\n Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.
\n
\n(m) If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n'),(38442,1930,405080,405196,'(a) If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n
\n(b) If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized 5 Points.
\n
\n(c) If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.
\n
\n(d) If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded 15 Points.
\n
\n(e) If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized 10 Points.
\n
\n(f) If a Player submits a Disinterested Proposal which is Adopted, e may be Awarded 1 Point, plus 1 Point for each vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.
\n
\n(g) If a Player submits an Interested Proposal which is Adopted, e may be Awarded 4 Points, plus 1 Point for each vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.
\n
\n(h) If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may be Awarded 2 Points.
\n
\n(i) If a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge may be Awarded 5 Points
\n
\n(j) If a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge may be Penalized 5 Points.
\n
\n a Historical Patent Title which e has not held during the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.
\n
\n(l) If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n'),(38443,1932,404458,404801,'The(a) The Oligarchy is a the set of six positions which are filled by Players, all Players who are called Oligarchs. No Player may ever occupy more than one position in the Oligarchy at any one time. A position is vacant if and only if it is not occupied; hence there is a vacancy in the Oligarchy only when there are fewer than six Oligarchs.
\n
\nThere are three ranks within the Oligarchy, termed High, Middle, and Low. There are at most one High Oligarch and at most two Middle Oligarchs. There may be as many as six Low Oligarchs, but the normal number is three.
\n
\nAn(b) An Oligarch may resign eir position in the Oligarchy by publicly announcing that e does so. Upon such an announcement, e ceases to be an Oligarch and eir position becomes vacant. Oligarch.
\n'),(38444,1932,404801,405284,'(a) The OligarchyClass is a stuck player switch with values Plebeian and Oligarch. A Plebeian may flip eir class if eir Potency is greater than or equal to the set of all Players who are Oligarchs. Potency Threshold. An Oligarch may flip eir class at any time.
\n
\n(b) An Oligarch may resign eir position in theThe Oligarchy by publicly announcing that e does so. Upon such an announcement, e ceases to be an Oligarch. is the set of all Players who are Oligarchs.
\n'),(38445,1932,405284,405309,'Class is a stuck player switch with values Plebeian and Oligarch. A Plebeian may flip eir class if eir Potency is greater than or equal to the Potency Threshold. An Oligarch may flip eir class at any time.The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\nThe Oligarchy* Shares , where X is a positive integer. The Holder is considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other Cards).
\n
\nThe following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: One Share Elements: Budgeted, Bleed , Shares
\n
\n* Caption: Two Shares Elements: Budgeted, Bleed , Shares
\n
\n* Caption: Three Shares Elements: Budgeted, Bleed , Shares
\n
\n* Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned to the set Deck.
\n
\nAll cards with the Element "Shares " are cumulatively known as the Stock Cards.
\n
\nAn entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings of all Players entities.
\n
\nA Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who are Oligarchs. is not a Shareholder. The Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.
\n'),(38446,1932,405309,405343,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Shares , where X is a positive integer. The Holder is considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other Cards).
\n
\nThe following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n Budgeted, Bleed , Shares
\n
\n Budgeted, Bleed , Shares
\n
\n Budgeted, Bleed , Shares
\n
\n* Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned to the Deck.
\n
\nAll cards with the Element "Shares " are cumulatively known as the Stock Cards.
\n
\nAn entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings of all entities.
\n
\nA Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.
\n'),(38447,1932,405343,405373,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Shares , where X is a positive integer. The Holder is considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other Cards).
\n
\nThe following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n Budgeted, Shares Shares , Handed
\n
\n Budgeted, Shares Shares , Handed
\n
\n Budgeted, Shares Shares , Handed
\n
\n* Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned to the Deck.
\n
\nAll cards with the Element "Shares " are cumulatively known as the Stock Cards.
\n
\nAn entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings of all entities.
\n
\nA Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.
\n'),(38448,1932,405373,405412,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Shares , where X is a positive integer. The Holder is considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other Cards).
\n
\nThe following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: One Share Elements: Budgeted, Shares , Handed
\n
\n* Caption: Two Shares Elements: Budgeted, Shares , Handed
\n
\n* Caption: Three Shares Elements: Budgeted, Shares , Handed
\n
\n* Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned to the Deck.
\n
\nAll cards with the Element "Shares " are cumulatively known as the Stock Cards.
\n
\nAn entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings of all entities.
\n
\nA Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.
\n
\n* Caption: Divide or Conquer Your Stock Quota: 8 Elements: Restricted Exploit: Specify one or more Share cards in your hand, and one or more Share cards in the deck, such that both sets consist of the same total number of Shares. The specified cards in your hand are transferred to the deck, and the specified cards in the deck are transferred to your hand.
\n'),(38449,1932,405412,405543,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Shares , where X is a positive integer. The Holder is considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other Cards).
\n
\nThe following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: One Share Elements: Budgeted, Shares , Handed
\n
\n* Caption: Two Shares Elements: Budgeted, Shares , Handed
\n
\n* Caption: Three Shares Elements: Budgeted, Shares , Handed
\n
\n* Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned to the Deck.
\n
\nAll cards with the Element "Shares " are cumulatively known as the Stock Cards.
\n
\nAn entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings of all entities.
\n
\nA Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.
\n
\n* Caption: Divide or Conquer Your Stock Quota: 8 Elements: Restricted Exploit: Specify one or more Share cards in your hand, and one or more Share cards in the deck, such that both sets consist of the same total number of Shares. The specified cards in your hand are transferred to the deck, and the specified cards in the deck are transferred to your hand.
\n'),(38450,1932,405543,405566,'All cards with the Element "Shares " are cumulatively known as the Stock Cards.
\n
\n Shares possessed. possessed by that entity. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings of all entities.
\n
\n an Eligible Shareholder entity with positive Share Holdings. A A Plebeian is a Player player who is not a an eligible Shareholder. The The Corporation is the set of all Shareholders. eligible Shareholders.
\n
\nTo be valid, a ballot on an ordinary proposal must be submitted by an eligible Shareholder.
\n'),(38451,1932,405566,405620,'All cardsA Stock Card is a card with the Element "Shares " are cumulatively known as the Stock Cards. ".
\n
\nAn entity\'sThe Share Holdings of an entity is equal to the number of Shares possessed by that entity. The The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings of all entities.
\n
\n not an eligible a Shareholder. The Corporation is the set collection of all eligible Shareholders.
\n
\nTo be valid, a ballot on an ordinary proposal must be submitted by an eligible Shareholder. Shareholders.
\n'),(38452,1933,404487,404917,' Proposal is either Ordinary or Democratic. A Proposal is Ordinary unless (a) shall be in (or have) exactly one defined Chamber out of the following possibile Chambers: (A) Ordinary; (B) Democratic; (C) Parliamentary.
\n
\nRules to the nonwithstanding, a Proposal has an can never be Ordinary if its Adoption Index of is two (2) or greater; (b) greater.
\n
\nEvery Proposals is initially Ordinary unless the Proposal above limitation applies to it, in which case it is made Democratic initially Democratic. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to two (2).
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38453,1933,404917,405266,'Every Proposal shall be in (or have) exactly one defined Chamber out of the following possibile Chambers: (A) Ordinary; (B) Democratic; (C) Parliamentary.Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and Democratic.
\n
\nRules to the nonwithstanding, a Proposal can never be Ordinary if its Adoption Index is two (2) or greater.
\n
\nEvery Proposals is initially Ordinary unless the above limitation applies to it, in which case it is initially Democratic. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to two (2).
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38454,1933,405266,405300,'Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and Democratic.
\n
\nRules to the nonwithstanding, a Proposal can never beAn Ordinary if its Proposal with Adoption Index is of two (2) or greater. greater is a Stalled Proposal. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a Stalled Proposal may not be distributed. If a proposal is distributed that was Stalled at the time of distribution, the Promotor shall abort it as soon as possible.
\n
\nEvery Proposals Proposal is initially Ordinary Democratic, unless the above limitation applies to it, its Adoption Index is less than two (2), in which case it is initially Democratic. Ordinary. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to two (2).
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38455,1933,405300,405322,'Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and Democratic.
\n
\n a Stalled Proposal may not be distributed. If is Undistributable while it is Stalled. If a proposal is distributed that was Stalled at the time of distribution, the Promotor shall abort it as soon as possible.
\n
\nEvery Proposal is initially Democratic, unless its Adoption Index is less than two (2), in which case it is initially Ordinary. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to two (2).
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38456,1933,405322,405332,'Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and Democratic.
\n
\nAn Ordinary Proposal with Adoption Index of two (2) or greater is a Stalled Proposal. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a Proposal is Undistributable while it is Stalled. If a proposal is distributed that was Stalled at the time of distribution, the Promotor shall abort it as soon as possible.
\n
\nEvery Proposal is initially Democratic, unless its Adoption Index is less than two (2), in which case it is initially Ordinary. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to two (2).
\n
\nWhenever a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed while the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as described elsewhere and returned to the Proposal Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics intact.
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38457,1933,405332,405580,' stuck proposal switch for Proposals with values Ordinary democratic and Democratic. ordinary.
\n
\nAn Ordinary Proposal ordinary proposal with Adoption Index adoption index of two (2) or greater is a Stalled Proposal. stalled. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a Proposal proposal is Undistributable undistributable while it is Stalled. If stalled. If a proposal is distributed that was Stalled stalled at the time of distribution, the Promotor its chamber shall abort it as soon as possible. immediately and automatically be flipped to democratic.
\n
\nEvery Proposal is initially Democratic, unless its Adoption IndexWhile a proposal is less than two (2), in which case it is initially Ordinary. The Chamber of a the Proposal Pool, its proposer may only be changed as specified flip its chamber by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to two (2).
\n
\nWhenever a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed while announcement. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would permit the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as described elsewhere and returned chamber of a proposal to the Proposal Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics intact. be changed.
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38458,1933,405580,405639,' values democratic ordinary and ordinary. democratic. The default chamber for a proposal with an adoption index of at least 2 is democratic.
\n
\n with an adoption index of two or greater is stalled. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a stalled proposal is undistributable while it is stalled. If undistributable, and if a proposal is distributed that was stalled at the time of distribution, its chamber shall immediately and automatically be flipped set to democratic.
\n
\nWhile a proposal is in the Proposal Pool, its proposer may flip its chamber by announcement. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would permit the chamber of a proposal to be changed. democratic.
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38459,1933,405639,405683,' and democratic. The default chamber for a proposal with an adoption index of at least 2 is democratic.
\n
\n to democratic. democratic. If the Promotor knowingly distributes a stalled proposal, e commits the class 4 crime of Improper Debate.
\n
\nAny player can flip the Chamber of a stalled proposal to democratic without objection. The Speaker can flip the Chamber of a stalled proposal to democratic with support.
\n
\nMar. 24 2000
\n'),(38460,1934,404488,404737,' Speaker may declare may, with 3 Supporters, Sanitise an Interested Proposal, Proposal which would otherwise be an Ordinary Proposal, for which the Voting Period has not yet concluded, and which has never been Contested, a Sane Proposal, With 3 Supporters. This declaration may occur before the Voting Period commences; if it does, then this supported declaration turns the Proposal into a Democratic Proposal, and makes it Sane, requiring its Distribution Cost to be modified as required by other Rules. If this supported declaration occurs during the Voting Period for the Proposal, then the Proposal is not modified unless at least one Papyrus is transferred to the Bank for this stated purpose by any Player. If this transfer occurs, then the Proposal becomes Democratic and Sane, all Votes already cast on the Proposal prior to the change are cancelled and its Voting Period is extended subject of an Attempt to end seven days after it became a Sane Proposal. Democratise.
\n
\nAny Player may Contest an Interested Proposal, which would otherwise be an OrdinaryIf a Proposal and for which the is Sanitised before its Voting Period has not yet concluded, by sending a message to the Public Forum stating e is doing so. If this Player is an Untainted Speaker, then the commences, said Proposal becomes Contested when e receives three Supporters. If this Player is not an Untainted Speaker, then the Proposal a Democratic Proposal, becomes Contested if and only if e receives three Supporters a Sane Proposal, and e publicly transfers 0.1VE to the Bank for the Contest. has its Distribution Cost modified as required by other Rules.
\n
\n is Contested, any Player may publicly transfer any number of VEs to the Bank with a clear. unambiguous statement that this transfer is made either for or against the Contest. At the end of the Sanitised during its Voting Period, the Contest said Proposal is not modified until at least one Papyrus is Succesful if strictly more VEs have been publicly transferred to the Bank solely for this stated purpose by any Player during the Contest than have been publicly transferred to the Bank against the Contest. Proposal\'s Voting Period. If equal numbers of VEs have been publicly transferred to this happens, the Bank both for Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal, the Proposal becomes a Sane Proposal, and against all votes thus far cast on the Contest, then Proposal are cancelled. The Assessor shall announce that the Contest is Succesful only if Proposal ha been successfully Sanitised; the Voting Period of the Proposal was Contested by an Untainted Speaker. is extended to end seven days after this announcement.
\n
\nIf the Contest is not Succesful,Any Player may, With Support, make an Attempt to Democratise an Interested Proposal which would otherwise be an Ordinary Proposal, and for which the Voting Period has not yet concluded. There is considered a Fee of 0.1 VEs for a Player other than an Untainted Speaker to have ended, and the Proposal is considered make an ordinary Ordinary Proposal for any further actions. Attempt to Democratise. This Fee must be paid publicly.
\n
\nIfOnce an Attempt to Democratise a Proposal has been made, until the Contest is Succesful, then all Votes cast on end of the Proposal are cancelled. The Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal. The Proposal\'s Voting Period is considered not Period, any Player may publicly transfer any number of VEs to have ended, and is extended the Bank with a further seven days. clear, unambiguous statement that this transfer is made solely for the purpose of Democratising the Proposal, or solely for the purpose of keeping the Proposal Ordinary.
\n
\nTheAt the end of the Voting Period, Democratisation succeeds if at least as many VEs have been publicly transferred to the Bank for Democratisating the Proposal as for keeping the Proposal Ordinary. The Assessor shall be required to determine announce as soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period whether or not Democratisation of that Proposal has succeeded.
\n
\nIf Democratisation does not succeed, the Contest Voting Period is Succesful, and shall report considered to have ended as usual. The Attempt does not in any results way modify the Proposal in question.
\n
\nIf Democratisation succeeds, the Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal, and all Votes thus far cast on the Proposal are cancelled. The Voting Period for that Proposal is considered not to have ended (except for the purposes of this determination as soon as possible. Attempt to Democratise), and is extended to end seven days after the Assessor\'s announcement that Democratisation has succeeded.
\n
\nMar. 26 2000
\n'),(38461,1936,404461,404804,'Whenever an Auction is conducted to fill(a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall auction off a position or number of Oligarchy positions in equal to the Oligarchy, Oligarchy Auction Rate. The GWotO shall conduct the Auction according to one of the standard Rules-defined Auction procedure is used, Procedures, with the following additions and exceptions: modifications:
\n
\n(a)(1) Auction Currency: the Auction Currency is Stems.
\n
\n(b)(2) Bidders: Only non-Oligarchy Politicians may bid. The Speaker, the Speaker-Elect, all Zombies, and all who are eligible to be Oligarchs may not bid.
\n
\n(c)(3) If a bidder ceases to be a Player, goes On Hold, becomes an Oligarch or becomes a Zombie, ineligible to be an Oligarch, the Speaker or the Speaker-Elect during the Auction, then all eir bids in the Auction are cancelled.
\n
\n(d)(4) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids are the N largest valid uncancelled bids made by different Players who are not Oligarchs, where N is the number of positions being Auctioned.
\n
\n(e)(5) Defaulting: a winning bidder has one week from the time e is billed by the Auctioneer for eir winning bid in which to pay the bill. If the bill remains unpaid for more than one week, then the winning bidder is considered to have defaulted. In that case, the Auctioneer shall forgive the debt and penalise the defaulting bidder 2 Blots.
\n
\nA position in the Oligarchy is pending if the position is vacant, an Auction has been held for that position and a winning bidder determined, and the winning bidder has not defaulted.
\n
\nWhen(b) When a winning bidder pays the bill for eir winning bid in the Auction, e becomes a Low Oligarch, provided the position is pending. an Oligarch.
\n'),(38462,1936,404804,404964,'(a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall auction off a number of Oligarchy positions equal to the Oligarchy Auction Rate. The GWotO shall conduct the Auction according to one of the Rules-defined Auction Procedures, with the following modifications:
\n
\n(1) Auction Currency: the Auction Currency is Stems.
\n
\n non-Oligarchy Politicians Active Players who are eligible to be Oligarchs may bid.
\n
\n(3) If a bidder becomes an Oligarch or becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, then all eir bids in the Auction are cancelled.
\n
\n(4) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids are the N largest valid uncancelled bids made by different Players who are not Oligarchs, where N is the number of positions being Auctioned.
\n
\n(5) Defaulting: a winning bidder has one week from the time e is billed by the Auctioneer for eir winning bid in which to pay the bill. If the bill remains unpaid for more than one week, then the winning bidder is considered to have defaulted. In that case, the Auctioneer shall forgive the debt and penalise the defaulting bidder 2 Blots.
\n
\n(b) When a A winning bidder pays becomes an Oligarch upon paying the bill for eir winning bid if e is a Politician, or upon paying both the bill for eir winning bid in and the Auction, Base Seating Fee if e becomes an Oligarch. is not a Politician.
\n'),(38463,1936,404964,405024,'(a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall auction off a number of Oligarchy positions equal to the Oligarchy Auction Rate. The GWotO shall conduct the Auction according to one of the Rules-defined Auction Procedures, with the following modifications:
\n
\n(1) Auction Currency: the Auction Currency is Stems.
\n
\n(2) Bidders: Only non-Oligarchy Active Players who are eligible to be Oligarchs may bid.
\n
\n(3) If a bidder becomes an Oligarch or becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, then all eir bids in the Auction are cancelled.
\n
\n(4) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids are the N largest valid uncancelled bids made by different Players who are not Oligarchs, where N is the number of positions being Auctioned.
\n
\n(5) Defaulting: a winning bidder has one week from the time e is billed by the Auctioneer for eir winning bid in which to pay the bill. If the bill remains unpaid for more than one week, then the winning bidder is considered to have defaulted. In that case, the Auctioneer shall forgive the debt and penalise the defaulting bidder 2 Blots.
\n
\n(b) A winning bidder becomes an Oligarch upon paying the bill for eir winning bid if e is a Politician, or upon paying both the bill for eir winning bid and the Base Seating Fee if e is not a Politician.
\n'),(38464,1936,405024,405157,'(a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall auction off a number of Oligarchy positions equal Any Player eligible to do so may become an Oligarch at any time, by announcing that they do so. The fee associated with this action is the Oligarchy Auction Rate. The GWotO shall conduct Charge Requirement if the Auction according to one of Player is not a Politician, and half the Rules-defined Auction Procedures, with Oligarchy Charge Requirement if the following modifications: Player is a Politician.
\n
\n(1) Auction Currency:(b) By default, a Player remains an Oligarch for a period of time equal to the Auction Currency is Stems. Oligarchic Term. The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall remove a Player from the Oligarchy by public announcement, as soon as possible after eir term expires. Other rules may cause Players to cease to be Oligarchs.
\n
\n(2) Bidders: Only non-Oligarchy Active Players who are eligible to be Oligarchs(c) An Oligarch may bid. extend their term of service by a length of time equal to the Oligarchic Term at any time by announcement. The Fee associated with this action is the same as the fee for becoming an Oligarch.
\n
\n(3) If a bidder becomes an Oligarch or becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, then all eir bids in the Auction are cancelled.
\n
\n(4) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids are the N largest valid uncancelled bids made by different Players who are not Oligarchs, where N is the number(d) The Grand Warden of positions being Auctioned.
\n
\n(b) A winning bidder becomes an Oligarch upon paying the bill for eir winning bid if e Oligarchy is a Politician, or upon paying both the bill reponsible for eir winning bid and tracking membership of the Base Seating Fee if e is not a Politician. Oligarchy, and individual Oligarchs\' terms of service.
\n'),(38465,1936,405157,405263,'(a) Any Player eligible to do so may become an Oligarch at any time, by announcing that they do so. The fee associated with this action is the Oligarchy Charge Requirement if the Player is not a Politician, and half the Oligarchy Charge Requirement if the Player is a Politician.
\n
\n(b) By default, When a Player remains an Oligarch for a period Player\'s Term of time equal to Service expires, the Oligarchic Term. The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall remove a that Player from the Oligarchy by public announcement, as soon as possible after eir term expires. Other rules may cause Players to cease to be Oligarchs. Oligarchy.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch may extend their term of service by a length of time equal to the Oligarchic Term at any time by announcement. The Fee associated with this action is the same as the fee for becoming an Oligarch.
\n
\n(d) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy is reponsible for tracking membership of the Oligarchy, and individual Oligarchs\' terms of service.
\n'),(38466,1937,404462,404735,'When there are six Oligarchs and a number of Low Oligarchs other than three, the Oligarchy is "abnormally distributed", and an Oligarchy selection takes place as set out below.
\n
\n Class 2 1 Infraction of Oligardiness, which may be reported by any Player. However, if the Oligarchy selection occurs before the GWoTO publishes the list, the GWoTO is relieved of eir obligation to publish it.
\n
\nWhenever there are six Oligarchs, and no High Oligarch, the Low Oligarchs are permitted to select a Middle Oligarch to become the new High Oligarch. If there are no Middle Oligarchs, the Low Oligarchs shall instead select one of their own number to become the new High Oligarch. The immediately prior High Oligarch may not be selected as the new High Oligarch, if e is presently a Low Oligarch.
\n
\nWhenever there are six Oligarchs, a High Oligarch, and fewer than two Middle Oligarchs, the High Oligarch is permitted to select a Low Oligarch to become Middle Oligarch.
\n
\nWhen a selection from a set of one candidate is to be made, that candidate is selected immediately without any action by any Player.
\n
\nWhen a selection from a set of two or more candidates is to be made, and that selection is not to be made by the Speaker, the individual or individuals who are to make the selection shall announce their recommendations in the Public Forum. They are permitted to make their recommendations from the time the Oligarchy becomes abnormally distributed. They are required to make their recommendations within three days of the GWoTO\'s announcement. Recommendations, once made, cannot be changed.
\n
\nThe selection occurs when one candidate has received the recommendation of a majority of those persons required to make a recommendation. If three days pass from the GWoTO\'s announcement without one candidate receiving the recommendation of a majority, then if there is a candidate which has received more recommendations than any other candidate, that candidate is selected; otherwise, the decision passes to the Speaker, and the Speaker shall make the selection.
\n
\nWhen a selection from a set of two or more candidates is to be made, and that selection is required to be made by the Speaker, the Speaker shall make eir selection within seven days by announcing it in the Public Forum. A Speaker who fails to make such a selection becomes Tainted. If, at the time a Player becomes Speaker, the previous Speaker was required to make a selection by this Rule and had not yet done so, the new Speaker shall be instead required to make the selection, and shall do so within seven days of becoming Speaker, or become Tainted.
\n
\nIf a vacancy in the Oligarchy arises when the Oligarchy is abnormally distributed, then the Oligarchy selection and all requirements on Players arising from it are cancelled.
\n
\n Class 2 1 Infraction of Oligardiness; this Infraction may be reported by any Player.
\n'),(38467,1940,404457,404717,'The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic compensations. As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, each periodic compensation required to be paid out shall be paid out by the Officer required to do so.
\n
\nThe Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are periodic compensations.
\n
\n least 12 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\n least 12 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a Player if that Player was Speaker for the whole of the previous month.
\n'),(38468,1940,404717,404828,' compensations. As soon as possible after At the beginning of each month, each periodic compensation required to be paid out shall be paid out by the Officer required to do so.
\n
\nThe Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are periodic compensations.
\n
\nThe Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to each Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the designated Salary for each Office that Player held for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\nThe Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity to the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was both the Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a Player if that Player was Speaker for the whole of the previous month.
\n'),(38469,1940,404828,405006,'The(a) The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic compensations. At the beginning of each month, each periodic compensation required to be paid out shall be paid out by the Officer required to do so.
\n
\nThe(b) The Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are periodic compensations.
\n
\nThe(c) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to each Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the designated Salary for each Office that Player held for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\nThe(d) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity to the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was both the Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\nThe(e) The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a Player if that Player was Speaker for the whole at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n'),(38470,1940,405006,405035,'(a) The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic compensations. At the beginning of each month, each periodic compensation required to be paid out shall be paid out by the Officer required to do so.
\n
\n(b) The Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are periodic compensations.
\n
\n each active Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the designated Salary for each Office that Player held for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\n(d) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity to the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was both the Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\n(e) The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a Player if that Player was Speaker for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n'),(38471,1940,405035,405155,'(a) The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic compensations. At the beginningThe boon of each month, each periodic compensation required to be paid out shall be paid out by Public Service exists for the Officer required to do so. purpose of awarding Officers for serving.
\n
\n(b) The Minimum Income,As soon as possible after the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s Gratuity, and the Salary for beginning of each Office are periodic compensations. month, the Assistant Director of Personnel shall award:
\n
\n(c) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to(A) 1 Public Service Boon for each active Player, and shall further pay out Office, to each Player the designated Salary for each Office that Player (if any) who held that Office for at least 16 or more days of in the previous month. month;
\n
\n(d) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity(B) 1 Public Service Boon to the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and (if any) who was both the Distributor and a Player Speaker for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n
\n(e) The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity(C) 1 Public Service Boon to a Player the Distributor if that the Distributor is a Player and was Speaker both the Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of the previous month.
\n'),(38472,1940,405155,405434,'The boon of Public Service exists for the purpose of awarding Officers for serving.
\n
\nAs soon as possible afterPaperwork is a stuck switch for Offices with states Low and High. The Assistant Director of Personnel is the recordkeepor for paperwork. For the beginning purpose of each month, this rule, the Speaker and the Distributor are considered offices. The Assistant Director of Personnel shall award: or the Speaker may switch the paperwork of an office with two supporters and without two objections.
\n
\n(A)As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the Assistant Director of Personnel shall award 1 Public Service Boon for each Office, office to the Player player (if any) who held that Office office for 16 or more days in the previous month; month; e shall award an additional Public Service boon to that player if the office is a high paperwork office.
\n
\n(B) 1 Public Service Boon to the Player (if any) who was Speaker for at least 16 daysEach office may make one Proposal distributable per month without payment of the previous month.
\n
\n(C) 1 Public Service Boon to the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was both fee, by the Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days electee of the previous month. that office publicly invoking that office\'s Civil Service Exemption.
\n'),(38473,1940,405434,405511,'The boon of Public Service exists for the purpose of awarding Officers for serving.
\n
\n The Assistant Associate Director of Personnel is the recordkeepor for paperwork. For the purpose of this rule, the Speaker and the Distributor are considered offices. The Assistant Associate Director of Personnel or the Speaker may switch the paperwork of an office with two supporters and without two objections.
\n
\n the Assistant Associate Director of Personnel shall award 1 Public Service Boon for each office to the player (if any) who held that office for 16 or more days in the previous month; e shall award an additional Public Service boon to that player if the office is a high paperwork office.
\n
\nEach office may make one Proposal distributable per month without payment of a fee, by the electee of that office publicly invoking that office\'s Civil Service Exemption.
\n'),(38474,1940,405511,405600,' awarding Officers officers for serving.
\n
\n for Offices offices with states Low low and High. high. The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is the recordkeepor for paperwork. For the purpose of this rule, the Speaker and the Distributor are considered offices. The Associate Director of Personnel ADoP or the Speaker may switch flip the paperwork of an office with two supporters and without two objections.
\n
\n the Associate Director of Personnel ADoP shall award 1 Public Service Boon for each office to the player (if any) who held that office for 16 or more days in the previous month; e shall award an additional Public Service boon to that player if the office is a high paperwork office.
\n
\nEach officeWhile a player is electee to an office, e may make one Proposal proposal distributable per month without payment of a fee, by the electee of that office publicly invoking that office\'s Civil Service Exemption. Exemption, even if this would cause em to exceed eir per-player proposal limit.
\n'),(38475,1941,404613,404815,'A Fee is a specific quantity of some particular Currency explicitly designated as such by the Rules. To Pay a Fee is to transfer the specified quantity of that particular Currency to the Bank if and only if that transfer is made solely for the purpose of Paying that particular instance of that Fee.
\n
\nIf the Rules specify that a particular action is associated with a Fee, or that a Fee is required for a particular action, then the entity performing the action shall Pay the Fee either before performing said action (but not more than 72 hours beforehand) or in the same email as the action is performed, else the action shall not occur.
\n
\nIf, however, at the time of performing the given action, the Location of the entity performing the action is the same as the Location of the Rule which associates or requires a Fee for the given action, and the Player announces this overlap of Location in the same communication in which the action is performed, the action shall occur as permitted by other Rules whether or not the associated Fee is Paid.
\n'),(38476,1941,404815,405175,'A Fee is a specific quantity of some particular Currency explicitly designated as such byIf the Rules. To Pay Rules associate a Fee non-negative cost, price, charge, or fee with an action, that action is to transfer a fee-based action. If the specified quantity of that particular Currency to cost is not an integer, the Bank if and only if that transfer actual fee is made solely for the purpose of Paying that particular instance of that Fee. next highest integer.
\n
\nIf the Rules specify that a particular action is associated withTo perform a Fee, or that fee-based action, a Fee Player (the Actor) who is required for a particular action, then the entity performing otherwise permitted to perform the action shall Pay the Fee either before must announce that e is performing said action (but not more than 72 hours beforehand) or in the same email as the action and announce that there is performed, else the action shall not occur. a fee for that action.
\n
\nIf, however, atIf the time of performing the given action, the Location of Actor has kudos equal to or greater than the entity performing fee, the action is performed, the same as Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the fee, and Agora\'s kudos are increased by the fee.
\n
\nAny Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the Location action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the Rule which associates or requires attempted action.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after such a Fee for challenge, the given action, and Herald shall confirm or deny whether the Player announces this overlap of Location in Actor possessed kudos equal to or greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action.
\n
\nIf the same communication Actor in which fact possessed insufficient honor, the action is performed, shall be deemed to have not occurred and the kudos of the Actor shall be deemed to have not changed. Otherwise the action shall occur be deemed to have occurred (and the change in kudos shall be recorded).
\n
\nIf a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be permitted by other Rules whether to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge is issued, the Herald shall confirm or not deny its correctness. But in this case the associated Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is Paid. left with negative kudos.
\n'),(38477,1941,405175,405253,'If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next highest integer.
\n
\n action.
\n
\nIf the Actor has kudos equal to or greater than the fee, Upon said announcement, the action is performed, the Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the fee, and Agora\'s kudos are increased by the fee.
\n
\nAny Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the attempted action.
\n
\n action.
\n
\nIf If the Actor in fact possessed insufficient honor, or the honor of the Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort, the action shall be deemed to have not occurred and the kudos of the Actor (and Agora) shall be deemed to have not changed. Otherwise the action shall be deemed to have occurred (and been changed by the change in kudos shall be recorded). fee.
\n
\nIf a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness. But in this case the Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is left with negative kudos.
\n'),(38478,1941,405253,405254,''),(38479,1941,405254,405335,'If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next highest integer.
\n
\n the fee, and Agora\'s kudos are increased by the fee.
\n
\nAny Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the attempted action.
\n
\n Actor (and Agora) shall be deemed to have not been changed by the fee.
\n
\nIf a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness. But in this case the Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is left with negative kudos.
\n'),(38480,1941,405335,405603,'IfA fee-based action is an action with which the Rules rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or fee with an action, that action is fee, which must be a fee-based action. natural number. If the specified cost is rules describe a fee-based action but do not an integer, indicate the actual fee for that action, then that fee is the next highest integer. zero.
\n
\nTo perform a fee-based action, a PlayerA player (the Actor) who is otherwise permitted attempts to perform the a fee-based action must announce by announcing that e is performing performs it; specifying the action and announce to be performed; and, if the fee is nonzero, noting that there is a fee for that the action. Upon said announcement, The Actor has sufficient kudos to perform the action is performed, if the number of eir kudos meets or exceeds the fee. Upon eir announcement, the Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the fee. fee, and if e had sufficient kudos, e performs the action.
\n
\nAny Player (hereafterIf the challenger) may announce that success of the Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) Actor\'s attempt to perform the action, provided e issues eir challenge a fee-based action is publicly challenged within 7 days a week of the time the action was attempted, then the Herald shall, as soon as possible, determine whether the Actor had sufficient kudos when e attempted action. to perform the action, and announce eir determination.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after such a challenge,If the Herald shall confirm or deny whether announces that the Actor possessed did not have sufficient kudos equal to or greater than the fee perform a fee-based action at the time e attempted the action. If the Actor in fact possessed insufficient honor, or the honor of eir attempt, and eir announcement was published within a fortnight from the Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort, time the action was attempted, then the action shall be deemed not to have not occurred and been performed. If the kudos Herald made this announcement within a week of the Actor shall be deemed attempt to have not been changed by perform the fee. action, or the success of the attempt was publicly challenged within a week of the attempt, then the Herald shall refund the Actor eir kudos.
\n
\nIf the success of an Actor\'s attempt to perform a Player issues a fee-based challenge as above, but more than 7 days have passed since is not publicly challenged within a week of the attempted action, time the action was attempted, then the action shall be permitted deemed to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness. But have been performed.
\n
\nNothing in this case the Fee rule shall be recorded even if act to prevent a person from performing a fee-based action by another mechanism for performing that action provided by the Actor is left with negative kudos. rules.
\n'),(38481,1942,404602,404839,'AnyA property is an entity which the Rules rules permit to be possessed by another entity is a Property. Within the context of the Rules, the entity. The term "possess" refers to the legal status of possessing a Property; property; the terms "possessor" and "owner" are synonymous, synonyms, as are "possess" and "own". Individual Properties properties may not be created or destroyed, or their ownership changed, except in accordance with the Rules. rules.
\n
\nEvery PropertyEach property shall have a Recordkeepor, recordkeepor, which is some Player who is a player required to retain maintain a record of who owns that Property. If, for a given Property, no other Rule provides otherwise, or if property. The Treasuror is the Rules recordkeepor for each property that would otherwise provide for a person who is not a Player, the Treasuror shall maintain this record. If have no recordkeepor.
\n
\nIf one of the Official official duties of an Officer officer is to be the Recordkeepor recordkeepor of a Property, property, then eir Weekly Report shall include this record and any changes thereto since the last posting of eir Report.
\n'),(38482,1942,404839,405174,'A property is an entity which the rules permit to be possessed by another entity. The term "possess" refers to the legal status of possessing a property; the terms "possessor" and "owner" are synonyms, as are "possess" and "own". Individual properties may not be created or destroyed, or their ownership changed, except in accordance with the rules.
\n
\n The Treasuror Notary is the recordkeepor for each property that would otherwise have no recordkeepor.
\n
\nIf one of the official duties of an officer is to be the recordkeepor of a property, then eir Weekly Report shall include this record and any changes thereto since the last posting of eir Report.
\n'),(38483,1942,405174,405194,'A property is an entity which the rules permit to be possessed by another entity. The term "possess" refers to the legal status of possessing a property; the terms "possessor" and "owner" are synonyms, as are "possess" and "own". Individual properties may not be created or destroyed, or their ownership changed, except in accordance with the rules.
\n
\nEach property shall have a recordkeepor, which is a player required to maintain a record of who owns that property. The Notary is the recordkeepor for each property that would otherwise have no recordkeepor.
\n
\nIf one of the official duties of an officer is to be the recordkeepor of a property, then eir Weekly Report shall include this record and any changes thereto since the last posting of eir Report.
\n
\nIf a category of properties ceases to exist, all debts of that property shall cease to exist. The former recordkeepor of that property category must, as soon as possible after the category ceases to exist, publish entities\' holdings of that category as they existed immediately before this destruction.
\n
\nIf a Player destroys a category of property for which e is a debtor, e commits the Class-4 Crime of Writing Bad Checks.
\n'),(38484,1945,404634,404775,' is 0.1. 0.001.
\n'),(38485,1946,404635,404776,'The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is equal to the number of registered Players.
\n
\nThe Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions but not yet paid for.
\n
\nThe Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL, the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.
\n
\n are Minimum Unit Quantities lots of of Voting Entitlements, and thus 0.1 VEs; the number of items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus divided multiplied by 10, rounded down to the MUQ of VEs. nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only Politicians may bid.
\n
\nUpon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Voting Entitlement Auction, the Assessor shall pay out one Voting Entitlement to the debtor of the satisfied debt. bid.
\n'); INSERT INTO `diffs` VALUES (38486,1946,404776,404848,'The(a) The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is equal to the number of registered Players. Players multiplied by the Voting Entitlements per Player as set in the Assessor\'s Budget.
\n
\nThe(b) The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions but not yet paid for.
\n
\nThe(c) The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL, the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.
\n
\nWhenever it occurs that(d) If the Voting Entitlement Surplus is positive and no Auction at the beginning of Voting Entitlements is already in progress, the month, the Assessor shall as soon as possible auction off the surplus Voting Entitlements. The items to be auctioned are lots of 0.1 VEs; the number of items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus multiplied by 10, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only Politicians may bid.
\n'),(38487,1946,404848,404922,'(a) The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is equal to the number of registered Players multiplied by the Voting Entitlements per Player as set in the Assessor\'s Budget.
\n
\n(b) The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions but not yet paid for.
\n
\n(c) The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL, the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.
\n
\n in Stems. Only Politicians may bid. Stems.
\n'),(38488,1946,404922,405010,'(a) The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is equal to the number of registered Players multiplied by the Voting Entitlements per Player as set in the Assessor\'s Budget.
\n
\n which either: (1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions that have not yet concluded; or (2) have been auctioned off to in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions that have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning Bidders Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or (3) have been Auctioned in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions that have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning Bids have been paid, but the Voting Entitlements have not yet paid for. been transferred to the Winning Bidders.
\n
\n(c) The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL, the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.
\n
\n(d) If the Voting Entitlement Surplus is positive at the beginning of the month, the Assessor shall as soon as possible auction off the surplus Voting Entitlements. The items to be auctioned are lots of 0.1 VEs; the number of items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus multiplied by 10, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.
\n'),(38489,1950,404489,404807,'An Entity\'s(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows:
\n
\n(a) The High Oligarch: three; (b) A Middle Oligarch: two; (c) A Low(1) An Oligarch: one; (d) (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\nAn Entity\'s(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:
\n
\n(a)(1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of: (1) (a) for the High Oligarch, one; (2) for a Middle an Oligarch, two; (3) for a Low Oligarch, three; (4) (b) for a non-Oligarch, five. (b) (2) The Bank: zero; (c) (3) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\nAt the beginning(c) The value of a week, the Assessor shall determine each an entity\'s Voting Power on Democratic and Ordinary Proposals. These values and Democratic Proposals at the beginning of each Week shall then be in effect for all Proposals of the proper type distributed during that week. Week. However, if a Proposal is made Democratic after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Proposal is made Democratic.
\n
\nAn(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exception that no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote. An entity may cast its votes in any combination e wishes.
\n'),(38490,1950,404807,404918,' as follows: follows: (1) An Oligarch: one; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(1)(b) An Oligarch: one; entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of: (a) for an Oligarch, two; (b) for a non-Oligarch, five. (2) The Bank: zero; (3) Any other entity: zero. as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(b)(c) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Parliamentary Proposal is as follows: follows: (1) One, if the entity is one of the following: (a) The Oligarchy; (b) The Democracy; (c) The Speakership. (2) Any other entity, zero.
\n
\n(1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots e has, with a minimum(c) The value of zero and a maximum of: (a) for an Oligarch, two; (b) entity\'s Voting Power for a non-Oligarch, five. (2) The Bank: zero; (3) Any other entity: as defined in any given Chamber at the Rules, with a default beginning of zero each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if the Rules don\'t specify a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal Power of each entity for that entity. Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power on Ordinary and Democratic Proposals at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal is made Democratic after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Proposal is made Democratic.
\n
\n(d)(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exception that exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote. An entity may (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast its votes in any combination e wishes. through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules for each specific entity with Voting Power on Parliamentary Proposals.
\n'),(38491,1950,404918,404997,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) An Oligarch: one; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of: (a) for an Oligarch, two; (b) for a non-Oligarch, five. (2) The Bank: zero; (3) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n The Oligarchy; First Estate; (b) The Democracy; Second Estate; (c) The Speakership. Third Estate. (2) Any other entity, zero.
\n
\n(c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote. (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules for each specific entity with Voting Power on Parliamentary Proposals.
\n'),(38492,1950,404997,405026,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) An Oligarch: one; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of: (a) for an Oligarch, two; (b) for a non-Oligarch, five. (2) The Bank: zero; (3) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Parliamentary Proposal is as follows: (1) One, if the entity is one of the following: (a) The First Estate; (b) The Second Estate; (c) The Third Estate. (2) Any other entity, zero.
\n
\n(c)(d) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(d)(e) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote. (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules for each specific entity with Voting Power on Parliamentary Proposals.
\n'),(38493,1950,405026,405164,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) An Oligarch: one; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n follows: (1)
\n
\n* A Player: one (a) two plus the number of that Player\'s Voting Entitlements e possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots e has, with a minimum of zero and Potential if that Player is a maximum of: (a) for an Oligarch, two; non-Oligarch Politician; (b) for a non-Oligarch, five. (2) The Bank: zero; (3) one plus that Player\'s Voting Potential otherwise.
\n
\n* Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Parliamentary Proposal is as follows: (1) One, if the entity is one of the following: (a) The First Estate; (b) The Second Estate; (c) The Third Estate. (2) Any other entity, zero.
\n
\n(d) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(e) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote. (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules for each specific entity with Voting Power on Parliamentary Proposals.
\n'),(38494,1950,405164,405267,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) An Oligarch: one; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:
\n
\n* A Player: (a) two plus that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player is a non-Oligarch Politician; (b) one plus that Player\'s Voting Potential otherwise.
\n
\n* Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) An The value of an entity\'s Voting Power on for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Parliamentary Proposal Proposal\'s Chamber is as follows: (1) One, if changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is one of redetermined at the time the following: (a) The First Estate; (b) The Second Estate; (c) The Third Estate. (2) Any other entity, zero. Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(d) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(e) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote. (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules for each specific entity with Voting Power on Parliamentary Proposals. vote.
\n'),(38495,1950,405267,405311,' (1) An Oligarch: one; A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:
\n
\n Player is a non-Oligarch Politician; has zero Share Holdings. (b) one plus that Player\'s Voting Potential otherwise.
\n
\n* Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n is an Oligarch a Shareholder at the time e casts eir vote.
\n'),(38496,1950,405311,405359,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n follows:
\n
\n* (1) A Player: (a) two plus that (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player has zero Share Holdings. (b) Sente. (ii) one plus that Player\'s Voting Potential otherwise.
\n
\n* (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is a Shareholder at the time e casts eir vote.
\n'),(38497,1950,405359,497197,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings; (2) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (1) A Player: (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player has Sente. (ii) one otherwise. (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero ifLest the Rules don\'t specify entire proposal process fall under the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) The value control of an entity\'s Voting Power for a single entity, any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during change that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, would result in the Voting Power of each same entity for that Proposal is redetermined at holding the time the Chamber offices of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is changed.
\n
\n(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up canceled and does not occur, rules to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is a Shareholder at the time e casts eir vote. contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38498,1950,497197,405413,'Lest(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings; (2) the entire proposal process fall under Deckmastor: the control number of Share Cards in the Deck or three, whichever is smaller; plus eir Share Holdings (if e is a single entity, any change Shareholder); (3) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (1) A Player: (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that would result Player has Sente. (ii) one otherwise. (2) Any other entity: as defined in the same entity holding Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the offices Voting Power of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is canceled and does not occur, rules each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the contrary notwithstanding. limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is a Shareholder or the Deckmastor at the time e casts eir vote.
\n'),(38499,1950,405413,405437,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings; (2) the Deckmastor: the number of Share Cards in the Deck or three, whichever is smaller; plus eir Share Holdings (if e is a Shareholder); (3) Any other entity: zero.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (1) A Player: (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player has Sente. (ii) one otherwise. (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.
\n
\n(c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.
\n
\n(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is a Shareholder or the Deckmastor at the time e casts eir vote.
\n
\nOther rules with Power of at least 2 may modify a player\'s Voting Power.
\n'),(38500,1950,405437,405581,'(a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows: (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings; (2) the Deckmastor: the numberThe voting limit of Share Cards in the Deck an eligible voter on a referendum or three, whichever is smaller; plus eir Share Holdings (if e an election is a Shareholder); (3) Any other entity: zero. always one and cannot be changed.
\n
\n(b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (1) A Player: (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player has Sente. (ii) one otherwise. (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a defaultThe voting limit of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power an eligible voter on a Democratic Proposal for that entity. non-ordinary proposal is one.
\n
\n(c) The valueThe voting limit of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed. sum of:
\n
\n(d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, in any combination, up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions that: (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e is a Shareholder or the Deckmastor at the time e casts eir vote.(a) one;
\n
\nOther rules with Power(b) eir Share Holdings; and
\n
\n(c) the minimum of at least 2 may modify three and the number of Share cards in the Deck, if e is the Deckmastor.
\n
\nAfter the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a player\'s Voting Power. number equal to that person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.
\n'),(38501,1950,405581,405738,' a referendum or an election democratic proposal is always one and cannot be changed.
\n
\n on a non-ordinary proposal is one.
\n
\nThe voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is the sum of:
\n
\n(a) one;
\n
\n(b) eir Share Holdings; and
\n
\n(c) the minimum of three and the number of Share cards in the Deck, one, if e is the Deckmastor. not explicitly modified by other rules.
\n
\nAfter the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.
\n'),(38502,1950,405738,405867,' is always one and cannot be changed. changed except by this rule.
\n
\n is one, one if not explicitly modified by other rules. rules.
\n
\nThe voting limit of an eligible voter who is not a natural person is always one less than it would otherwise be.
\n
\nAfter the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.
\n'),(38503,1950,405867,405906,' an eligible voter entity on a democratic proposal is one and cannot be changed except by this rule.
\n
\n an eligible voter entity on an ordinary proposal is one if not explicitly modified by other rules.
\n
\n an eligible voter entity who is not a natural person is always one less than it would otherwise be.
\n
\n by an eligible each voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.
\n'),(38504,1950,405906,405925,'TheAn entity\'s voting limit of an entity on a democratic proposal is one and cannot be changed except by this rule. an Agoran decision is:
\n
\nThe voting limit of an(a) If the entity on an ordinary proposal is one if not explicitly modified by other rules. an eligible voter, then zero, not subject to modification.
\n
\nThe voting limit of an entity who is not a natural person(b) Otherwise, if the decision is always one less than it would otherwise be. to resolve an ordinary proposal, then one, subject to modification by the rules.
\n
\nAfter(c) Otherwise, one, subject to modification only by this rule.
\n
\nThe voting limit of an entity who is not a natural person is reduced by one.
\n
\nAt the end of the voting period for of an Agoran decision has ended, the vote collector shall permit decision, the first valid N ballots submitted by each voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to entity on that person\'s decision (where N is the entity\'s voting limit on that the decision as determined when at the start of the voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate period) remain valid; all subsequent other ballots submitted by that voter on that decision. decision are invalid.
\n'),(38505,1950,405925,405942,'An entity\'s voting limit on an Agoran decision is:
\n
\n(a) If the entity is not an eligible voter, then zero, not subject to modification.
\n
\n(b) Otherwise, if the decision is to resolve an ordinary proposal, then one, subject to modification by the rules.
\n
\n(c) Otherwise, one, subject to modification only by this rule.
\n
\n a natural first-class person is reduced by one.
\n
\nAt the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is the entity\'s voting limit on the decision at the start of the voting period) remain valid; all other ballots submitted on that decision are invalid.
\n'),(38506,1950,405942,405996,'An entity\'s voting limit on an Agoran decision is:
\n
\n(a) If the entity is not an eligible voter, then zero, not subject to modification.
\n
\n(b) Otherwise, if the decision is to resolve an ordinary proposal, then one, subject to modification by the rules.
\n
\n(c) Otherwise, one, subject to modification only by this rule.
\n
\nThe voting limit of an entity who is not a first-class person is reduced by one.
\n
\n limit on the decision at the start of the voting period) decision\'s ballot allotment time) remain valid; all other ballots submitted on that decision are invalid. invalid.
\n
\nThe ballot allotment time of a proposal that becomes or ceases to be ordinary during the proposal\'s voting period is the time of the last such change. The ballot allotment time of any other decision is the start of the voting period.
\n'),(38507,1950,405996,432238,'An entity\'s voting limit on an Agoran decision is:
\n
\n(a) If the entity is not anThe eligible voter, then zero, not subject to modification.
\n
\n(b) Otherwise, if the decision is to resolve an ordinary proposal, then one, subject to modification by the rules.
\n
\n(c) Otherwise, one, subject to modification only by this rule.
\n
\nThe voting limit of an entity who is not voters on a democratic proposal are those entities that were active first-class person is reduced by one.
\n
\nAt players at the end start of the its voting period of an Agoran decision, the first N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is the entity\'s period. The voting limit at the decision\'s ballot allotment time) remain valid; all other ballots submitted on that decision are invalid.
\n
\nThe ballot allotment time of each eligible voter on a democratic proposal that becomes or ceases to be ordinary during the proposal\'s voting period is the time of the last such change. The ballot allotment time of any other decision is the start of the voting period. one.
\n'),(38508,1950,432238,497266,' democratic proposal decision 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 decision is one.
\n'),(38509,1951,404476,404771,' is 0.1. 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Papyri is the Promotor.
\n'),(38510,1952,404479,404755,'Each Proposal is either Distributable or Undistributable. Initially, each Proposal is Undistributable. When a Proposal becomes Disinterested, it immediately becomes Distributable and may not become Undistributable by any means as long as it remains Disinterested.
\n
\nAny Player may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri equal to the amount of the Distribution Cost of the Proposal. Any Player may make any Interested Distributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool Undistributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri double the amount of the Distribution Cost of the Proposal.
\n
\nAny Monk may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri equal to half the amount of the Distribution Cost of the Proposal, rounded up.
\n'),(38511,1952,404755,405161,' remains Disinterested. Disinterested. The Rules may define other mechanisms through which a Proposal becomes Distributable or Undistributable.
\n
\n and Paying paying a Fee of a number of Papyri fee equal to the amount of the Distribution Cost of the Proposal. Any Cost. Any Player may make any Interested an Undistributed Distributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool Undistributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri double the amount of the Distribution Cost of the Proposal.
\n
\nAny Monk may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and Paying a Fee of paying a number of Papyri fee equal to half the amount of twice the Distribution Cost of the Proposal, rounded up. Cost.
\n'),(38512,1952,405161,405221,'Each ProposalDepth is either Distributable or Undistributable. Initially, each Proposal is Undistributable. When a Proposal becomes Disinterested, it immediately becomes Distributable stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and may not become Undistributable by any means as long as it remains Disinterested. The Rules may define other mechanisms through which a Proposal becomes Distributable or Undistributable. distributable.
\n
\nAny PlayerA player may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool Distributable flip a proposal\'s depth to distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and paying a fee equal to the its Distribution Cost. Any Player may make an Undistributed Distributable Proposal Undistributable Cost, or to undistributable by paying a fee equal to twice the its Distribution Cost.
\n'),(38513,1952,405221,405242,''),(38514,1952,405242,405435,'Depth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and distributable.
\n
\n flip the depth of a Proposal that e proposed to distributable by paying a proposal\'s fee equal to its Distribution Cost.
\n
\nA player may flip the depth of a Proposal that e did not propose to distributable by paying a fee equal to its Distribution Cost, or Cost minus one (minimum zero).
\n
\nA player may flip the depth of any Proposal to undistributable by paying a fee equal to twice its Distribution Cost.
\n'),(38515,1952,405435,405572,'The Promotor shall have a budget containing the per-player proposal limit, which shall be a positive integer defaulting to four.
\n
\nDepth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and distributable.
\n
\n of a one of eir proposals in the Proposal that e proposed Pool to distributable by paying a fee equal to its Distribution Cost.
\n
\nA player may flip announcement as long as the depth number of a Proposal that e did not propose to eir distributable by paying a fee equal to its Distribution Cost minus one (minimum zero).
\n
\nA player may flip proposals in the depth of any Proposal to undistributable by paying a fee equal to twice its Distribution Cost. Pool is less than the per-player proposal limit.
\n'),(38516,1952,405572,405622,'The Promotor shall have a budget containing the per-player proposal limit, which shall be a positive integer defaulting to four.
\n
\nDepth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and distributable.
\n
\nA playerBefore the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may flip the its depth of one of eir proposals in the Proposal Pool to distributable by announcement as long as the number of eir distributable proposals in the Pool which have been submitted but have not been distributed or retracted is less than the per-player proposal limit.
\n'),(38517,1953,404474,405484,'A Proposal is Sane if all the following conditions are met:
\n
\ni) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is a Sane Proposal, or it has been declared a Sane Proposal by other methods explicitly stated in the Rules,
\n
\n is Interested.
\n
\niii) The Proposal is Democratic.
\n
\nA Sane Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.
\n
\nOn Sane Proposals, each Player has a Voting Power of one, unless e has five or more Blots, in which case eir Voting Power is zero; all other entities have a Voting Power of zero on Sane Proposals.
\n
\nThis Rule takes precedence over other Rules which determine the Voting Power of entities.
\n'),(38518,1954,404477,404697,'As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may auction as many Papyri as e wishes.
\n
\nThe items to be auctioned are individual Papyri, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Papyri to be Auctioned. The Auctioneer shall be the Promotor, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only Scribes may bid.
\n
\nUpon the satisfaction of a debt arising from a Papyrus Auction, the Promotor shall pay out one Papyrus to the debtor of the satisfied debt.
\n
\nThe Promotor may, within a week after the end of a Papyrus Auction, pay out to emself a number of Stems equal to the Winning Bid of the Auction, if there were at least three different winners in the Auction, not counting the Promotor emself.
\n'),(38519,1954,404697,404772,'As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may auction as many Papyri as e wishes.
\n
\nThe items to be auctioned are individual Papyri, and thus the number of items is equal to the number of Papyri to be Auctioned. The Auctioneer shall be the Promotor, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only Scribes may bid.
\n
\nUpon the satisfaction of a debt arising from a Papyrus Auction, the Promotor shall pay out one Papyrus to the debtor of the satisfied debt.
\n'),(38520,1954,404772,404830,'As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may auction as many Papyri as e wishes.
\n
\n Auctioned. The Auctioneer shall be the Promotor, and the The Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only Scribes may bid.
\n'),(38521,1954,404830,404914,'As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may auction as many Papyri as e wishes.
\n
\n in Stems. Only Scribes may bid. Stems.
\n'),(38522,1955,404453,404800,'There(a) There is an Office of Grand Warden of the Oligarchy, Oligarchy (GWotO), whose responsibility it is to conduct Auctions for positions in the Oligarchy. maintain a list of Oligarchs.
\n
\nThe(b) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\'s Report shall include: consist of a list of all Oligarchs and a list of all Elder Oligarchs (if any).
\n
\n(a) a list of all positions in(c) The GWotO shall have a budget containing the Oligarchy with their ranks, and the Players who hold those positions; and
\n
\n(b) the date on Auction Rate, which is an integer between 1 and 4 inclusive. The GWotO may amend eir budget Without 2 Objections from Oligarchs. There is an Office of Grand Warden of the current High Oligarch, if there Oligarchy, whose responsibility it is one, became to conduct Auctions for positions in the High Oligarch. Oligarchy.
\n'),(38523,1955,404800,404825,'(a) There is an Office ofThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO), whose responsibility it (GWotO) is to maintain a list an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Oligarchs. oligarchs and is responsible for conducting auctions for positions in the Oligarchy.
\n
\n(b) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\'sThe GWotO\'s Weekly Report shall consist of a list of all Oligarchs and include a list of all Elder Oligarchs (if any). oligarchs identifying which, if any, are elder oligarchs.
\n
\n(c) TheThe GWotO shall have a budget containing the Oligarchy Auction Rate, which is an a positive integer between 1 and 4 inclusive. The less than 5. The GWotO may amend eir budget Without 2 Objections from Oligarchs. There is an Office of Grand Warden of oligarchs replace the Oligarchy, whose responsibility it is budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces eir intent to conduct Auctions for positions in the Oligarchy. do so.
\n'),(38524,1955,404825,404873,'The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of oligarchs and is responsible for conducting auctions for positions in the Oligarchy.
\n
\n all oligarchs identifying which, if any, are elder oligarchs. oligarchs, the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker transition.
\n
\nThe GWotO shall have a budget containing the Oligarchy Auction Rate, which is a positive integer less than 5. The GWotO may Without 2 Objections from oligarchs replace the budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces eir intent to do so.
\n'),(38525,1955,404873,404963,'The(a) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of oligarchs Oligarchs and is responsible for conducting auctions for positions in the Oligarchy.
\n
\nThe(b) The GWotO\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of all oligarchs, Oligarchs, the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker transition.
\n
\nThe(c) The GWotO shall have a budget containing containing: (1) the Oligarchy Auction Rate, which is a positive integer less than 5. The 5; (2) the Base Seating Fee, which is a number of Voting Entitlements between 0.1 and 0.5 inclusive.
\n
\n(d) The GWotO may Without 2 Objections from oligarchs Oligarchs replace the budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces eir intent to do so.
\n'),(38526,1955,404963,405154,' of Oligarchs and is responsible for conducting auctions for positions in the Oligarchy. Oligarchs.
\n
\n Oligarchs, when their terms as Oligarchs expire, the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker transition.
\n
\n budget containing: (1) containing the Oligarchy Auction Rate, Charge Requirement, which is a positive integer less than 5; (2) 10, and the Base Seating Fee, Oligarchic Term, which is a number of Voting Entitlements days between 0.1 30 and 0.5 inclusive. 90.
\n
\n(d) The GWotO may Without 2 Objections from Oligarchs replace the budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces eir intent to do so.
\n'),(38527,1955,405154,405281,'(a) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Oligarchs.
\n
\n Oligarchs, when their terms as Oligarchs expire, the membership of each Player\'s Coalition, the Potency and Lobbying Strength of each Player, the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker transition.
\n
\n the Oligarchy Charge Requirement, Political Charge, which is a positive integer less than 10, and the Oligarchic Term, Potency Threshold, which is a number of days between 30 and 90. positive integer less than 10.
\n
\n(d) The GWotO may Without 2 Objections from Oligarchs replace the budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces eir intent to do so.
\n'),(38528,1957,404513,404834,'A Budget budget is a document maintained by a particular Office, whose holder is its Maintainer, and determining various an office which determines the values as of various properties the office is empowered to determine. An office has a budget only if the Rules explicitly required or permitted by indicate that the office has a budget. Each budget shall be part of the corresponding office\'s Monthly Report. As soon as possible after a budget changes, the holder of the Rules. corresponding office (the maintainer) shall publish it.
\n
\nAn Office hasAs soon as possible after a Budget only if the Rules explicitly designate one. Each Budget shall budget is discovered to be part of the Monthly Reports of invalid, its Maintainer. The Maintainer maintainer shall publish the Budget create a valid budget as soon close as possible whenever it changes. to the most recent valid version of the budget. The new budget shall be effective when the maintainer publishes it.
\n
\nIf a current Budget is discovered to be invalid, then its Maintainer shall create a valid one as soon as possible. This valid one should be as close as possible to the most recent valid version of the Budget.
\n
\nWhileWhile holding an Office office as Electee, electee, an Officer officer may amend its Budget Without Objection; Objection amend the budget to adhere to a proto-budget which e must publish at the time e announces eir intent to amend. The Rules regarding a particular Budget budget may specify a different procedure for its amendment.
\n'),(38529,1958,404514,405146,'If(a) If an Office office has a Budget, budget, then each Nominee for the Office shall submit a valid Proto-Budget during the Nomination Period, or else eir Nomination shall automatically be withdrawn at the end of the Nomination Period. A Proto-Budget nomination in an election for that office is not valid if it would be valid as unless a Budget. valid proto-budget is associated with it.
\n
\nWhen(b) A proto-budget submitted by a nominee during the Voting Period begins, the Vote Collector shall announce each Candidate\'s last nominating period is associated with that nominee\'s nomination. A proto-budget is valid if it would be valid Proto-Budget. as a budget.
\n
\nWhen(c) If a nominee for an Office fails to submit a valid proto-budget during the nominating period, then by default eir nomination is associated with a proto-budget identical to the current budget for that Office. If the Voting Period current budget is not valid, tough cookies.
\n
\n(d) When the voting period begins, the vote collector shall announce each candidate\'s last valid proto-budget.
\n
\n(e) When the voting period ends, the Winner\'s winner\'s last valid Proto-Budget proto-budget becomes the Budget budget of that Office, office, and e shall announce it as soon as possible. If If the Election election ends without a Winner, winner, then the existing Budget remains in effect.
\n'),(38530,1958,405146,405323,'(a) If an office has a budget, then a nomination in an election for that office is not valid unless a valid proto-budget is associated with it.
\n
\n(b) A proto-budget submitted by a nominee during the nominating period is associated with that nominee\'s nomination. A proto-budget is valid if it would be valid as a budget.
\n
\n(c) If a nominee for an Office fails to submit a valid proto-budget during the nominating period, then by default eir nomination is associated with a proto-budget identical to the current budget for that Office. If the current budget is not valid, tough cookies.
\n
\n(d) When As soon as possible after the voting period begins, end of the nominating period, the vote collector shall announce each candidate\'s last valid proto-budget.
\n
\n the voting period election ends, the winner\'s last valid proto-budget becomes the budget of that office, and e the winner shall announce it as soon as possible. If If the election ends without a winner, then the existing Budget budget remains in effect.
\n'),(38531,1959,404603,404740,'The Executor of a given entity may announce a Will for that entity, this becomes that(a) An entity\'s Will. A Will must describe is a description of how to distribute the entity\'s Property should be distributed in the event that the entity cease ceases to have an Executor. The The Notary shall keep track a record of all Wills. Wills.
\n
\n(b) An entity creates a Will for itself by publishing it.
\n'),(38532,1959,404740,404751,''),(38533,1959,404751,405206,' Executor. The Notary shall keep a record of all Wills. An entity may never have more than one Will.
\n
\n for itself emself by publishing it. it.
\n
\n(c) An entity changes or destroys eir Will by announcing e does so.
\n
\n(d) The Notary shall keep a record of all Wills.
\n'),(38534,1960,404428,404715,'Each player may have a Role, which is one of the following:
\n
\n(a) Politician, (b) Scribe, (c) Acolyte.
\n
\nA Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous roles. Initially players do not have any role.
\n
\n Player who changes eir Role by publicly announcing which Role e is changing to, provided one of the following is true:
\n
\n1) e has no role, role or a player who e has not changed eir role in the past 3 months, may change roles by announcing publicly what months. 2) e has not changed eir role in the past six weeks and e is changing to. has paid a Fee of 1 Indulgence for the purpose of making this change 3) e has paid a Fee of 3 Indulgences for the purpose of making this change.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall keep track of each player\'s role, and include it in eir report.
\n'),(38535,1960,404715,405151,'Each player may have a Role, which is one of the following:
\n
\n(a) Politician, (b) Scribe, (c) Acolyte.
\n
\nA Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous roles. Initially players do not have any role.
\n
\nA Player changes eir Role by publicly announcing which Role e is changing to, provided one of the following is true:
\n
\n of 1 Indulgence 2 kudos for the purpose of making this change 3) e has paid a Fee of 3 Indulgences 6 kudos for the purpose of making this change.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall keep track of each player\'s role, and include it in eir report.
\n'),(38536,1960,405151,405219,'Each player may have a Role, whichRole is one of the following: a stuck player switch with values null, politician, scribe, and acolyte.
\n
\n(a) Politician, (b) Scribe, (c) Acolyte.A player may flip eir role if one of the following is true:
\n
\nA Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous roles. Initially players do not have any role.a) Eir role is null.
\n
\nA Player changesb) E has not changed eir Role by publicly announcing which Role e is changing to, provided one of role in the following is true: past three months.
\n
\n1) e has no role or e has not changed eir role in the past 3 months. 2) ec) E has not changed eir role in the past six weeks weeks, and e has paid pays a Fee fee of 2 kudos for the purpose of making this change 3) e has paid a Fee of 6 kudos for the purpose of making this change.
\n
\nThe Registrar shall keep trackd) E pays a fee of each player\'s role, and include it in eir report. 6 kudos for the purpose of making this change.
\n'),(38537,1960,405219,405240,''),(38538,1960,405240,405289,' null, politician, scribe, Acolyte, Patron, Politician, and acolyte. Scribe.
\n
\nA player may flip eir role if one of the following is true:
\n
\na) Eir role is null.
\n
\nb) E has not changed eir role in the past three months.
\n
\nc) E has not changed eir role in the past six weeks, and e pays a fee of 2 kudos for the purpose of making this change.
\n
\nd) E pays a fee of 6 kudos for the purpose of making this change.
\n'),(38539,1962,404643,404884,'BeingAn Immaculate Player is a Player whose Stain is zero.
\n
\nNot being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n
\nBeing the only Immaculate Player is a Win Condition. Upon the report of such a Win, the Herald shall expunge N Blots per Player, where N is the number Stain of Blots on the Player(s) with the least nonzero number of Blots. lowest non-zero Stain.
\n'),(38540,1962,404884,405028,'An Immaculate Player is a Player whose Stain is zero.
\n
\nNot being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n
\n only Active Immaculate Player is a Win Condition. Upon Upon the report of such a Win, the Herald shall expunge N Blots per Player, where N is the Stain of the Active Player(s) with the lowest non-zero Stain.
\n'),(38541,1962,405028,405125,'An Immaculate Player is a Player whose Stain is zero.
\n
\nNot being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.
\n
\nBeing the only Active Immaculate Player is a Win Condition. Upon the report of such a Win, the Herald shall expunge N Blots per Player, where N is the Stain of the Active Player(s) with the lowest non-zero Stain.
\n'),(38542,1963,404459,404803,'If(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch is On Hold, is a Zombie, has three or more Blots, is the Speaker, or is rotated out if and only if any of the Oligarchy, then the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy is required to remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as possible. following are true:
\n
\nThe GWoTO removes a Player from(1) e is On Hold; (2) e has three or more Blots; (3) e is the Oligarchy by correctly announcing that at least one of Speaker or the above conditions has arisen for that Player. The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of Speaker-Elect; or (4) e is the GWoTO\'s announcement, and eir position in Grand Warden of the Oligarchy becomes vacant. Oligarchy.
\n
\nAn(b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by correctly announcing that at least one of the above conditions has arisen for that Player. The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player also ceases to be an Oligarch, and eir position in the Oligarchy becomes vacant. Oligarch.
\n'),(38543,1963,404803,404866,'(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true:
\n
\n the Speaker or the Speaker-Elect; or (4) Speaker; (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy.
\n
\n conditions has arisen is true for that Player. The The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch.
\n'),(38544,1963,404866,404898,'(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true:
\n
\n is On Hold; not active; (2) e has three or more Blots; (3) e is the Speaker; (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect; or (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy.
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by correctly announcing that at least one of the above conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch.
\n'),(38545,1963,404898,405119,'(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true:
\n
\n Speaker-Elect; or (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy. Oligarchy; or (6) e is an Oligarch, and e has defaulted on payment of eir Oligarchy Upkeep since last becoming an Oligarch.
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by correctly announcing that at least one of the above conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch.
\n'),(38546,1963,405119,405156,'(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true:
\n
\n Oligarchy; or (6) e is an Oligarch, and e has defaulted on payment of eir Oligarchy Upkeep since last becoming an Oligarch. or
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by correctly announcing that at least one of the above conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch.
\n'),(38547,1963,405156,405262,'(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true:
\n
\n(1) e is not active; (2) e has three or more Blots; (3) e is the Speaker; (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect; (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; or
\n
\n the Oligarchy as soon as possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by correctly announcing that at least one of the above conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement. Oligarchy.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch.
\n'),(38548,1963,405262,405285,'(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true:
\n
\n Oligarchy; or or (6) eir Potency is less than the Potency Threshold and has been continuously so for at least five days;
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch.
\n'),(38549,1963,405285,405299,'(a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true:
\n
\n Speaker-Elect; or (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; or Oligarchy. (6) eir Potency is less than the Potency Threshold and has been continuously so for at least five days;
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch.
\n'),(38550,1963,405299,405310,'(a) AA Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any of the following are true: Eligible Shareholder unless:
\n
\n e is the Speaker; has fewer than zero points; (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect; Speaker; or (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy. (6) eir Potency is less than the Potency Threshold and has been continuously so for at least five days;
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy.
\n
\n(c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an Oligarch. Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(38551,1963,405310,405344,'A Player is an Eligible Shareholder unless:
\n
\n e has fewer than zero points; (4) e is the Speaker; or (5) (4) e is the Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(38552,1963,405344,405524,'A Player player is an Eligible Shareholder unless:
\n
\n(1) e eligible shareholder unless is not active; (2) e active, has three or more Blots; (3) e is the Speaker; blots, or (4) e is the Speaker-Elect. Speaker.
\n'),(38553,1963,405524,405539,' unless e is not active, has three or more blots, or is the Speaker.
\n'),(38554,1965,404498,404688,' fails quorum, Quorum, the Assessor shall announce publish a Notice of Complacency to that it has done so. Upon such an announcement, effect.
\n
\nPublication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency results in a copy of the Proposal becomes Democratic, its Voting period is extended being added to end seven days after the announcement, Proposal Pool. This new Proposal is Democratic and Distributable, and all Votes previously cast on it are cancelled. is deemed to have been submitted by the entity that submitted the Ordinary Proposal.
\n
\nIf an Ordinary Proposal has achieved Quorum, publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency for that Proposal is the Class 2 Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.
\n'),(38555,1965,404688,405186,' an Ordinary Proposal ordinary proposal fails Quorum, quorum, the Assessor shall publish a Notice of Complacency to that effect. effect. In addition, at any time during the voting period of an ordinary proposal for which the number of entities eligible to vote on the proposal is less than the quorum of the proposal, the Assessor may immediately publish a Notice of Complacency without waiting for the proposal\'s voting period to end.
\n
\nPublicationUpon publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency results in for a proposal, the proposal is immediately aborted. In addition, the copy of the Proposal being added to the Proposal Pool. This new Proposal is Democratic and Distributable, and proposal that is deemed added to have been submitted by the entity that submitted proposal pool as a result of the Ordinary Proposal. abortion becomes democratic and distributable.
\n
\nIf an Ordinary Proposal has achieved Quorum, publicationPublication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency for that Proposal not strictly authorized or required by this rule is the Class 2 Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.
\n'),(38556,1965,405186,405314,''),(38557,1965,405314,405391,''),(38558,1965,405391,405474,'As soon as possible after an ordinary proposal fails quorum, the Assessor shall publish a Notice of Complacency to that effect. In addition, at any time during the voting period of an ordinary proposal for which the number of entities eligible to vote on the proposal is less than the quorum of the proposal, the Assessor may immediately publish a Notice of Complacency without waiting for the proposal\'s voting period to end.
\n
\nUpon publication byWhen the Assessor of publishes a Notice of Complacency for a proposal, the proposal is immediately aborted. In addition, the copy of the proposal that is added to the proposal pool as a result of the abortion it becomes democratic and distributable. extraordinary.
\n
\nPublication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency not strictly authorized or required by this rule is the Class 2 Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.
\n'),(38559,1970,404413,404707,'The Office of the Usuror is hereby established.
\n
\n Usuror shall have is a Budget. The Usuror\'s Budget shall consist Limited Executor of the following items:
\n
\n(i) The Basic Fee for issuing Bonds. This Fee shall be expressed as a multiple of Bank, with the Basic Officer Salary and shall be an integral multiple authority to satisfy debts of 0.1, not less than 0, and not greater than 4.
\n
\n(ii) The purchase rates at which the Bank will buy Bonds in Stems. These rates are expressed as percentages, in owed by the range 0% to 100% inclusive. Each purchase rate applies only to a single combination of face value and time to maturity. Different rates may apply Bank to different such combinations. Any combination for which no rate is specified has a purchase rate of 0%.
\n
\n(iii) The Credit Limit, which is a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive. its creditors.
\n'),(38560,1970,404707,404845,'The Office of the Usuror is hereby established. an office; its holder is recordkeepor for Bonds and is partially responsible for the woes of revolving credit.
\n
\nThe Usuror is a Limited Executor of the Bank, with the authority to satisfy debts of Bonds owed by the Bank to its creditors.
\n'),(38561,1971,404627,404846,'The Bank, by the Treasuror, may issue Bonds with two Supporters. The number and species of Bonds to be issued must be set forth at the time the Treasuror seeks Support for the action. The Bank may not otherwise issue Bonds except through the mechanism set forth in this paragraph.
\n
\n Bond Auction. The Auctioneer of all Bank Bond Auctions shall be the Treasuror. Auction.
\n
\nThe Bank is not required to actually possess the Bonds it intends to Auction at the time the intent to conduct an Auction is announced or at the time the Auction begins. However, if the Bank, by virtue of not having sufficient quantity of some species of Bond, is unable to satisfy a debt arising from a Bond Auction within seven days of when the Auction ends, the Player who was Treasuror at the time the Auction began commits the offense of Selling the Blue Sky, a Class 6 Crime.
\n'),(38562,1974,404609,404808,'The Bank, by the Treasuror, may Mint new units of a Bank Currency only as follows:
\n
\n(a) Once during At any time, Without Objection, unless the thirty day period immediately following the registration of a new Player, a number of Stems not Currency to exceed five times the Basic Officer Salary per such new Player, with Two Supporters; be Minted is Stems.
\n
\n Two Supporters;
\n
\n(c) At any time, Without Objection. Supporters.
\n
\nThe Bank may not otherwise Mint new units of a Bank Currency except through the mechanism set forth in this Rule.
\n'),(38563,1975,404454,404826,'There is an Office ofThe Assistant Director of Personnel, whose responsibility it Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is to hold Elections responsible for holding elections for Officers. offices.
\n
\nThe Assistant Director of Personnel\'s ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n(a) a a list of all Offices; offices;
\n
\n(b) for for each Office, office, the Electee electee to the Office office and the earliest date such that e was the Electee to the Office on that date, and no other Player has been the Electee which e most recently became electee to the Office since that date; office;
\n
\n(c) for for each Office where office for which the current holder of the Office office is not the Electee, electee, the current holder of the Office, office, and the date on which e most recently became the holder of the Office; that office;
\n
\n(d) for for each Office, office, the date on which the Term term of Service service for the Office expires (or that office ends, or an indication that the Office office is held in perpetuity); and
\n
\n(e) the identity of the Speaker and the date of the next Quarterly Speaker Transition. perpetuity; and
\n'),(38564,1975,404826,404874,'The Assistant Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is responsible for holding elections for offices.
\n
\nThe ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n(a) a list of all offices;
\n
\n(b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on which e most recently became electee to that office;
\n
\n(c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date on which e most recently became holder of that office;
\n
\n in perpetuity; and perpetuity.
\n'),(38565,1975,404874,405308,'The Assistant Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is responsible for holding elections for offices.
\n
\nThe ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n(a) a list of all offices;
\n
\n(b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on which e most recently became electee to that office;
\n
\n(c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date on which e most recently became holder of that office;
\n
\n in perpetuity. perpetuity;
\n
\n(e) the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker transition.
\n'),(38566,1975,405308,405385,''),(38567,1975,405385,405510,'The Assistant Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is responsible for holding elections for offices.
\n
\n ADoP\'s Weekly Bi-Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n(a) a list of all offices;
\n
\n(b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on which e most recently became electee to that office;
\n
\n(c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date on which e most recently became holder of that office;
\n
\n(d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for that office ends, or an indication that the office is held in perpetuity;
\n
\n(e) the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker transition.
\n'),(38568,1975,405510,405523,'The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is responsible for holding elections for offices.
\n
\n ADoP\'s Bi-Weekly Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n(a) a list of all offices;
\n
\n(b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on which e most recently became electee to that office;
\n
\n(c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date on which e most recently became holder of that office;
\n
\n(d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for that office ends, or an indication that the office is held in perpetuity;
\n
\n the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker transition. Speaker.
\n'),(38569,1976,404412,404706,'In the four weeks immediately after eir Grace Period ends, a Player can award a Mentor\'s Bonus to any other player e deems to have been most helpful to em as a new Player. E can only make one such award. A Zombie may not make such an award.
\n
\n debt in Stems to the named Mentor equal to the New Player Award. Award for Stems.
\n'),(38570,1976,404706,404782,' such award. A Zombie may not make such an award.
\n
\nThe award is made by public announcement. Upon such an announcement the Bank shall incur a debt in Stems to the named Mentor equal to the New Player Award for Stems.
\n'),(38571,1976,404782,404962,' other player players e deems to have been most helpful to em as a new Player. E E can only make one such award. award, but may split it among any number of players.
\n
\nThe award is made by public announcement. Upon such an announcement the Bank shall incur a debt in Stems to the named Mentor equal to the New Player Award for Stems.
\n'),(38572,1976,404962,405136,' Player can (hereafter, the \'Protege\') may award a Mentor\'s Bonus to any other players each Player (hereafter, a \'Mentor\') e deems to have been most helpful to em as a new Player. E can only make one such award, but may split it among any number of players. Player.
\n
\nTheEach award is made by public announcement. announcement and must specify the Mentor\'s name and a number of Stems. Upon such an announcement the Bank shall incur a debt in of that number of Stems to the named Mentor equal to Mentor. The number of Stems a Protege may award in all of eir Mentor\'s Bonuses shall not exceed the number of Stems in the New Player Award for Stems. Award.
\n'),(38573,1976,405136,405150,' may award post a Mentor\'s Bonus single message of Gratitude, naming up to each Player four other Players (hereafter, a \'Mentor\') \'Mentors\') e deems to have been helpful to em as a new Player.
\n
\nEach award is made by public announcement and must specify the Mentor\'s name and a numberThe effect of Stems. Upon such an announcement the Bank shall incur a debt of that number of Stems message is to award each Mentor the named Mentor. The number Boon of Stems a Protege may mentorship and award in all of eir Mentor\'s Bonuses shall not exceed the number of Stems in Protege the New Player Award. Boon of politeness.
\n'),(38574,1978,404630,404713,' credit in a given currency is equal to the sum of the values of all Bonds owned by the Bank issued by that Player with a face value in Stems. that currency. Each Player\'s credit value in each currency shall be part of the Usuror\'s Weekly Report.
\n
\n Limit in the currency in question as set forth in the Usuror\'s Budget.
\n'),(38575,1978,404713,404758,'A Player\'s currentThe credit in a given currency of an entity with Bond Issuance Authority is equal to the sum of the values of all Bonds owned by the Bank issued by that Player entity with a face value in that currency. Each Player\'s The Usuror\'s Weekly Report shall list the credit value in each currency shall be part of the Usuror\'s Weekly Report. each non-Bank entity with Bond Issuance Authority, if that credit is greater than zero.
\n
\n if one of the following is the case: * it is issued by the Bank. * it is issued by a player and would not cause the issuer\'s credit to exceed the Player Credit Limit in the currency in question as set forth in the Usuror\'s Budget. * it is issued by a non-Player entity other than the Bank and would not cause that Player\'s the issuer\'s credit to exceed the Non-Player Credit Limit in the currency in question as set forth in the Usuror\'s Budget. Budget.
\n
\nThe Credit Limit for non-Bank currencies is 0.
\n'),(38576,1979,404631,404779,' Treasuror may may, with Support, place or remove a moratorium on all bond purchases with Support. Once in any specific Bank currency. Once a moratorium has been placed placed, the Bank may not purchase any Bonds with a face value in that currency, until the veto that moratorium is removed.
\n
\nIf a moratorium is in place, theThe Treasuror must report this any moratoria currently in place in eir Monthly Report.
\n'),(38577,1981,404605,404741,' A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized transfer of Property from any one entity to another entity commits which is made without being explicitly required or permitted by the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement. Rules is unauthorized.
\n
\n(b) An entity which receives A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized transfer of Property from any entity as the result of an intentional, valid and unauthorized transfer incurs a debt to another entity commits the Bank for all such Property. Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.
\n
\n(c) A Player who has been informed that e, or an An entity of which e is receives Property from any entity as the result of an Executor, has incurred intentional, valid and unauthorized transfer incurs a debt of the type decribed in (b) and who does not act to satisfy that debt within in a week of being informed of it commits the Class 10 Crime of Receiving Stolen transferor for all such Property.
\n
\n(d) For the the purposes A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized transfer which e is considered to have been made intentionally if and only if, at the time Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the transfer, the Player making it: (1) knew that the transfer was valid; (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; type decribed in (c) and (3) realized who does not act to satisfy that e was making debt within in a week of being informed of it commits the transfer. Class 10 Crime of Receiving Stolen Property.
\n
\n(e) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making it: (1) knew that the transfer was valid; (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and (3) realized that e was making the transfer.
\n
\n(f) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized transfer of Property from the Bank as the result of an accident or mistake does not commit Embezzlement.
\n'),(38578,1981,404741,404752,''),(38579,1981,404752,404840,'(a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity which is made without being explicitly required or permitted by the Rules is unauthorized.
\n
\n(b) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized transfer of Property from any entity to another entity commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.
\n
\n Property from any entity as the result of an intentional, a valid and but unauthorized transfer incurs a debt to the transferor Payor of that transfer for all such Property. Property thus received.
\n
\n(d) A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of which e is the Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the type decribed in (c) and who does not act to satisfy that debt within in a week of being informed of it commits the Class 10 Crime of Receiving Stolen Property.
\n
\n(e) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making it: (1) knew that the transfer was valid; (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and (3) realized that e was making the transfer.
\n
\n(f) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized transfer of Property as the result of an accident or mistake does not commit Embezzlement.
\n'),(38580,1981,404840,404971,'(a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity which is made without being explicitly required or permitted by the Rules is unauthorized.
\n
\n(b) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized transfer of Property from any entity Unless otherwise specified, Players and Organizations are always permitted to another entity commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement. transfer their own Property.
\n
\n(c) An entity which receives Property as the result of A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized transfer incurs a debt of Property from any entity to another entity commits the Payor Class 10 Crime of that transfer for all Property thus received. Embezzlement.
\n
\n(d) A Player who has been informed that e, or an An entity of which e is receives Property as the Prime Executor, has incurred result of a valid but unauthorized transfer incurs a debt of the type decribed in (c) and who does not act to satisfy that debt within in a week of being informed of it commits the Class 10 Crime Payor of Receiving Stolen Property. that transfer for all Property thus received.
\n
\n(e) For the the purposes A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized transfer which e is considered to have been made intentionally if and only if, at the time Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the transfer, the Player making it: (1) knew that the transfer was valid; (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; type decribed in (c) and (3) realized who does not act to satisfy that e was making debt within in a week of being informed of it commits the transfer. Class 10 Crime of Receiving Stolen Property.
\n
\n(f) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making it: (1) knew that the transfer was valid; (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and (3) realized that e was making the transfer.
\n
\n(g) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized transfer of Property as the result of an accident or mistake does not commit Embezzlement.
\n'),(38581,1983,404702,404720,'The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:
\n
\n(a) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid. Any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.
\n
\n(b) Making Bids: If the Bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then the Bids must be made in a message to a Public Forum. Otherwise, the Bidder may either Bid in a Public Forum or privately to the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(c) End of Auction: The Auction shall end one week after it begins.
\n
\n were N or more than N valid uncancelled Bids in the Auction; (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N or fewer valid uncancelled Bids. For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of items being Auctioned.
\n
\nThe Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much about their bidding as they wish.
\n'),(38582,1983,404720,404908,'The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:
\n
\n Auction. On Hold status Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid. Any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.
\n
\n(b) Making Bids: If the Bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then the Bids must be made in a message to a Public Forum. Otherwise, the Bidder may either Bid in a Public Forum or privately to the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(c) End of Auction: The Auction shall end one week after it begins.
\n
\n(d) The Final Auction Price is: (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid Bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled Bids in the Auction; (2) The Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid uncancelled Bids. For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of items being Auctioned.
\n
\nThe Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much about their bidding as they wish.
\n'),(38583,1983,404908,405002,'The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:
\n
\n Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid. Any any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.
\n
\n(b) Making Bids: If the Bidder Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then the Bids eir bids must be made in a message to a Public Forum. publically. Otherwise, the Bidder bidders may bid either Bid in a Public Forum publically, or privately to the Auctioneer.
\n
\n Auction: The the Auction shall end one week after it begins.
\n
\n Price is: is either: (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid Bid, bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled Bids bids in the Auction; or (2) The the Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid uncancelled Bids. bids. For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of items being Auctioned.
\n
\nThe Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much about their bidding as they wish.
\n'),(38584,1983,405002,405008,'The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:
\n
\n(a) Bidders: any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.
\n
\n(b) Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then eir bids must be made publically. Otherwise, bidders may bid either publically, or privately to the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(c)(d) End of Auction: the Auction shall end one week after it begins.
\n
\n(d)(e) The Final Auction Price is either: (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled bids in the Auction; or (2) the Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid uncancelled bids. For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of items being Auctioned.
\n
\nThe Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much about their bidding as they wish.
\n'),(38585,1983,405008,405027,'The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:
\n
\n(a) Bidders: any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.
\n
\n(b) Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then eir bids must be made publically. Otherwise, bidders may bid either publically, or privately to the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(c) Canceling Bids: if a Bidder has the same Executor as the Auctioneer, then eir Bids must be canceled publically. Otherwise, bidders may cancel bids either publically, or privately to the Auctioneer.
\n
\n(d) End of Auction: the Auction shall end one week after it begins.
\n
\n(e) The Final Auction Price is either: (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled bids in the Auction; or (2) the Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid uncancelled bids. For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of items being Auctioned.
\n
\nThe Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much about their bidding as they wish.
\n'),(38586,1984,404703,404721,'There is a type of Auction named a Raffle. The Auction Procedure for a Raffle is as follows:
\n
\n(a) Riff-Raff: The Riff-Raff is responsible for selling Raffle tickets and announcing the result of the Raffle. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Riff-Raff.
\n
\n the Raffle. Raffle. However, if a rule prohibits a player from bidding in this Auction, then e is also prohibited from buying tickets.
\n
\n(c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must specify the currency to be used, or the Raffle cannot take place.
\n
\n of Items: Lots: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more identical items. lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of items lots up for bid in the Raffle.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: The Raffle begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Raffle is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of the Riff-Raff, the Raffle Currency, the number of items, and the Ticket Price.
\n
\n(f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have the same Ticket Price. If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.
\n
\n(g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency to the Bank, provided that the purchase is not made before the start of the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many tickets as e desires during the Auction.
\n
\n(h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win. If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the Raffle.
\n
\n(j) Final Auction Price: The Final Auction Price for a Raffle is equal to the Ticket Price.
\n
\n(k) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a week after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency if: (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants, not including the Riff-Raff; and (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.
\n
\n winning tickets and transfer tickets. Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each winning Entrant a separate Auctioned item for each of eir winning tickets.
\n'),(38587,1984,404721,404869,'There is a type of Auction named a Raffle. The Auction Procedure for a Raffle is as follows:
\n
\n(a) Riff-Raff: Auctioneer: The Riff-Raff Auctioneer is responsible for selling Raffle tickets and announcing the result of conducting the Raffle. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be The Auctioneer is herein known as the Riff-Raff.
\n
\n(b) Entrants: Every Player not on Hold may enter the Raffle. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player enters the Raffle. However, if a rule prohibits a player from bidding in this Auction, then e is also prohibited from buying tickets.
\n
\n(c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must specify the currency to be used, or the Raffle cannot take place.
\n
\n(d) Number of Lots: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of lots up for bid in the Raffle.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: The Raffle begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Raffle is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of the Riff-Raff, the Raffle Currency, the number of items, and the Ticket Price.
\n
\n(f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have the same Ticket Price. If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.
\n
\n(g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency to the Bank, provided that the purchase is not made before the start of the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many tickets as e desires during the Auction.
\n
\n(h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win. If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the Raffle.
\n
\n(j) Final Auction Price: The Final Auction Price for Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a Raffle is equal week after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price. Price in the Raffle Currency if: (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants, not including the Riff-Raff; and (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.
\n
\n(k) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a week after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency if: (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants, not including the Riff-Raff; and (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.
\n
\n(l) Announcing Winners: As soon as possible after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets. Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each winning Entrant for each of eir winning tickets.
\n'),(38588,1984,404869,404909,'There is a type of Auction named a Raffle. The Auction Procedure for a Raffle is as follows:
\n
\n(a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for conducting the Raffle. The Auctioneer is herein known as the Riff-Raff.
\n
\n Raffle. On Hold status Activity is measured at the time a Player enters the Raffle. However, if a rule prohibits a player from bidding in this Auction, then e is also prohibited from buying tickets.
\n
\n(c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must specify the currency to be used, or the Raffle cannot take place.
\n
\n(d) Number of Lots: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the number of lots up for bid in the Raffle.
\n
\n(e) Start of Auction: The Raffle begins at the time the first correct and legal announcement that a Raffle is begun, as defined in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of the Riff-Raff, the Raffle Currency, the number of items, and the Ticket Price.
\n
\n(f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have the same Ticket Price. If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.
\n
\n(g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency to the Bank, provided that the purchase is not made before the start of the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many tickets as e desires during the Auction.
\n
\n(h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win. If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the Raffle.
\n
\n(j) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a week after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency if: (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants, not including the Riff-Raff; and (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.
\n
\n(k) Announcing Winners: As soon as possible after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets. Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each winning Entrant for each of eir winning tickets.
\n'),(38589,1984,404909,405003,' Auction named called a Raffle. The Auction Procedure for a Raffle is the same as follows: the Default Auction Procedure, with the following modifications:
\n
\n Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for conducting the Raffle. The Auctioneer is herein known as the Riff-Raff.
\n
\n(b) Entrants: Every Player not on Hold may enter Start of Raffle: the Raffle. Activity is measured at Raffle begins when the time first announcement that a Raffle has begun is made by a Player enters authorized to initiate the Raffle. However, if a rule prohibits The announcement must contain: (1) the identity of the Riff-Raff; (2) the Raffle Currency; (3) the number of items, N, being Raffled; and (4) the Ticket Price, a player from bidding in this Auction, then e is also prohibited from buying tickets. multiple of the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.
\n
\n(c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must specify Ticket Price: all tickets shall have the currency to same Ticket Price. If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be used, or equal to the MUQ of the Raffle cannot take place. Currency.
\n
\n(d) Number of Lots: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned Buying tickets: an entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee equal to the Ticket Price to the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates Bank, provided that the number purchase is not made before the start of lots up for bid in the Raffle. Auction, or after its end. Each entrant may buy as many tickets as e likes during the Auction.
\n
\n(e) Start End of Auction: The Raffle: the Raffle begins at ends if any of the following occur: (1) one week has passed from the time start of the first correct Raffle, and legal announcement that no tickets have been purchased; or (2) a Raffle is begun, as defined ticket has been purchased in other Rules, is published, together with the identity of Raffle, and 72 hours have passed without another ticket being purchased in the Riff-Raff, Raffle; (3) 14 days have passed since the Raffle Currency, the number of items, and the Ticket Price. began.
\n
\n(f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have Winning tickets: When the same Ticket Price. If not otherwise specified, Raffle ends, the Ticket Price Riff-Raff shall randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets to be equal winning tickets. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and multiple Raffle tickets bought by the MUQ of the same entrant may win. If there were less than N valid Raffle Currency. tickets, then all valid Raffle tickets are winning tickets.
\n
\n(g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of Announcing winners: as soon as possible after the Ticket Price in end of the Raffle Currency to Raffle, the Bank, provided that Riff-Raff shall announce the purchase is not made before winning tickets. Upon this announcement, the start owner of the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many tickets as e desires during the Auction. Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each winning entrant for each of eir winning tickets.
\n
\n(h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has not ended earlier.
\n
\n(i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win. If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the Raffle.
\n
\n(j) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within within a week after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency if: (1) The the Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants, entrants, not including the Riff-Raff; and (2) The the Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.
\n
\n(k) Announcing Winners: As soon as possible after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets. Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each winning Entrant for each of eir winning tickets. Raffle.
\n'),(38590,1984,405003,405038,'There is a type of Auction called a Raffle. The Auction Procedure for a Raffle is the same as the Default Auction Procedure, with the following modifications:
\n
\n(a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is known as the Riff-Raff.
\n
\n(b) Start of Raffle: the Raffle begins when the first announcement that a Raffle has begun is made by a Player authorized to initiate the Raffle. The announcement must contain: (1) the identity of the Riff-Raff; (2) the Raffle Currency; (3) the number of items, N, being Raffled; and (4) the Ticket Price, a multiple of the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.
\n
\n(c) Ticket Price: all tickets shall have the same Ticket Price. If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.
\n
\n tickets: an each active Player may buy tickets in the Raffle; non-active Players may not buy tickets. An entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee equal to the Ticket Price to the Bank, provided that the purchase is not made before the start of the Auction, Raffle, or after its end. Each entrant may buy as many tickets as e likes during the Auction. Raffle.
\n
\n(e) End of Raffle: the Raffle ends if any of the following occur: (1) one week has passed from the start of the Raffle, and no tickets have been purchased; or (2) a ticket has been purchased in the Raffle, and 72 hours have passed without another ticket being purchased in the Raffle; (3) 14 days have passed since the Raffle began.
\n
\n(f) Winning tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets to be winning tickets. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same entrant may win. If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all valid Raffle tickets are winning tickets.
\n
\n(g) Announcing winners: as soon as possible after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets. Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each winning entrant for each of eir winning tickets.
\n
\n(h) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: within a week after the end of the Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency if: (1) the Raffle had at least three separate winning entrants, not including the Riff-Raff; and (2) the Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.
\n'),(38591,1985,404712,404757,'The Usuror shall have a Budget. The Usuror\'s Budget shall consist of the following items:
\n
\n(i) The Basic Fee for issuing Bonds. This Fee shall be expressed as a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary and shall be an integral multiple of 0.1, not less than 0, and not greater than 4.
\n
\n(ii) The purchase rates at which the Bank will buy Bonds in each Bank Currency. These rates are expressed as percentages, in the range 0% to 100% inclusive. Each purchase rate applies only to a single combination of face value and time to maturity. Different rates may apply to different such combinations. Any combination for which no rate is specified has a purchase rate of 0%.
\n
\n The Player Credit Limit for Stems Stems, which is a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.
\n
\n The Non-Player Entity Credit Limit for Stems, which is a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.
\n
\n(v) The Player Credit Limit for each Bank currency, other than Stems, which is a multiple of the MUQ of that Currency between 0 and 10 20 inclusive.
\n
\n(vi) The Non-Player Credit Limit for each Bank currency, other than Stems, which is a multiple of the MUQ of that Currency between 0 and 20 inclusive.
\n'),(38592,1985,404757,404774,'The Usuror shall have a Budget. The Usuror\'s Budget shall consist of the following items:
\n
\n(i) The Basic Fee for issuing Bonds. This Fee shall be expressed as a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary and shall be an integral multiple of 0.1, not less than 0, and not greater than 4.
\n
\n(ii) The purchase rates at which the Bank will buy Bonds in each Bank Currency. These rates are expressed as percentages, in the range 0% to 100% inclusive. Each purchase rate applies only to a single combination of face value and time to maturity. Different rates may apply to different such combinations. Any combination for which no rate is specified has a purchase rate of 0%.
\n
\n(iii) The Player Credit Limit for Stems, which is a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.
\n
\n(iv) The Non-Player Entity Credit Limit for Stems, which is a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.
\n
\n and 20 2000 inclusive.
\n
\n and 20 2000 inclusive.
\n'),(38593,1986,404716,404820,'The set of all Players who are currently Scribes is known as the Scribes\' Council.A Scribe may lower the Distribution Cost of a Proposal by 1 with the Support of another Scribe, to a minimum cost of 0, provided the Cost of the Proposal has not already been so lowered.
\n
\nAny PlayerAn Acolyte may make expunge 1 Blot from any Undistributable Proposal Distributable (without payment Entity with the Support of any Fee) another Acolyte, provided the Acolyte has not so Expunged a Blot in the same Nomic Week.
\n
\nAn Acolyte with the Support of a majority Scribe, or a Scribe with the Support of an Acolyte, may Bless an Undistributed Proposal. A moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Ordinary Proposal becomes Democratic.
\n
\nA Politician, with the Support of another Poltician, may Unbless an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed Proposal is no longer Blessed.
\n
\nAn Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a Distributed Proposal for which the Scribes\' Council. Voting Period has not ended. If this happens, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere, but remains Distributable and becomes Democratic and Sane.
\n'),(38594,1986,404820,404913,' may lower the Distribution Cost of Rubberstamp a Proposal by 1 with paying a Fee in Papyri, or receiving the Support of another Scribe, to a minimum cost number of 0, provided other Scribes, equal to the Cost number of Proposals that the Proposal Scribe has previously Rubberstamped in the current Nomic Week (minimum zero). A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable: this does not already been so lowered. change its Distribution Fee.
\n
\n may expunge absolve (remove) 1 Blot from any Entity with by paying Fee in Indulgences, or receiving the Support of another Acolyte, provided a number of other Acolytes, equal to the number of such Absolutions the Acolyte has not so Expunged a Blot previously performed in the same current Nomic Week. Week (minimum zero).
\n
\n Acolyte with the Support of a Scribe, or may Exorcise a Scribe Dissolute Entity with the Support of an Acolyte, may Bless an Undistributed Proposal. A moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Ordinary Proposal becomes Democratic. another Acolyte. The effect of Exorcism is to instantly transfer all of the Entity\'s Indulgences to the Bank.
\n
\nA Politician,An Acolyte with the Support of another Poltician, a Scribe, or a Scribe with the Support of an Acolyte, may Unbless Bless an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed A moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Proposal becomes Democratic if it is no longer Blessed. not already.
\n
\nAn Untainted Speaker,A Politician, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a Distributed Proposal for which the Voting Period has not ended. If this happens, the Support of another Poltician, may Unbless an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere, but remains Distributable and becomes Democratic and Sane. no longer Blessed.
\n'),(38595,1986,404913,405048,' current Nomic Agoran Week (minimum zero). A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable: this does not change its Distribution Fee.
\n
\n current Nomic Agoran Week (minimum zero).
\n
\nAn Acolyte may Exorcise a Dissolute Entity with the Support of another Acolyte. The effect of Exorcism is to instantly transfer all of the Entity\'s Indulgences to the Bank.
\n
\nAn Acolyte with the Support of a Scribe, or a Scribe with the Support of an Acolyte, may Bless an Undistributed Proposal. A moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Proposal becomes Democratic if it is not already.
\n
\n another Poltician, Politician, may Unbless an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed Proposal is no longer Blessed.
\n'),(38596,1986,405048,405152,'A Scribe may RubberstampAn action is a Proposal by paying a Fee in Papyri, or receiving the Support of a number of other Scribes, equal to the number of Proposals that the Scribe has previously Rubberstamped in Progressive action if the current Agoran Week (minimum zero). A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable: this does not change its Distribution Fee. rules so state.
\n
\nAn Acolyte may absolve (remove) 1 Blot from any Entity by paying Fee in Indulgences, or receiving the Support ofIf an action is progressive, a number of other Acolytes, equal to the number of such Absolutions the Acolyte has previously performed in Player (the Actor) may perform the current Agoran Week (minimum zero). action either:
\n
\nAn Acolyte may Exorcise a Dissolute Entity(a) with the Support of another Acolyte. The effect of Exorcism is a number Players equal to instantly transfer all one plus the number of times that actor has performed that action in the Entity\'s Indulgences current week; (b) by paying a fee equal to the Bank. amount of Support required in (a); (c) if the number calculated in (a) is zero, by public announcement.
\n
\nAn AcolyteA progressive action may be associated with the Support of a Scribe, or a Scribe with role if the Support of an Acolyte, may Bless rules so state. If an Undistributed Proposal. A moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Proposal becomes Democratic if it energetic action is not already. associated with a role, only players who hold that role may perform, or support performance of, that action.
\n
\nA Politician, with the Support of another Politician, may UnblessRubberstamping a Proposal is a progressive action for Scribes. A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable.
\n
\nAbsolving an entity is a progressive action for Acolytes. Absolving an entity expunges 1 Blot from that entity.
\n
\nDebating an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed Proposal is no longer Blessed. a progressive Action for Politicians. The effect of Debating a Proposal is to change its Chamber to one named by the Politician, provided it is legal for that Proposal to be in the named Chamber and the Proposal is not Sane.
\n'),(38597,1986,405152,405191,'An action is a Progressive action if the rules so state.
\n
\nIf an action is progressive, a Player (the Actor) may perform the action either:
\n
\n(a) with the Support of a number Players equal to one plus the number of times that actor has performed that action in the current week; (b) by paying a fee equal to the amount of Support required in (a); (c) if the number calculated in (a) is zero, by public announcement.
\n
\n an energetic progressive action is associated with a role, only players who hold that role may perform, or support performance of, that action.
\n
\nRubberstamping a Proposal is a progressive action for Scribes. A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable.
\n
\nAbsolving an entity is a progressive action for Acolytes. Absolving an entity expunges 1 Blot from that entity.
\n
\nDebating an Undistributed Proposal is a progressive Action for Politicians. The effect of Debating a Proposal is to change its Chamber to one named by the Politician, provided it is legal for that Proposal to be in the named Chamber and the Proposal is not Sane.
\n'),(38598,1987,404726,405105,'The following Classes of Organizations exist:
\n
\n b) Contests. Contests. c) Monasteries
\n'),(38599,1987,405105,405126,'The following Classes of Organizations exist:
\n
\na) Groups. b) Contests. c) b) Monasteries
\n'),(38600,1989,404732,405039,'(a) The Prime Executor of an entity with respect to a certain action is the Player who is responsible for performing that action. For each action that an entity is required to perform, there shall be at most one Prime Executor of that entity with respect to that action. Any penalty incurred due to an entity\'s failure to perform as required by the Rules is incurred by the Prime Executor of that entity.
\n
\n(b) Any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the Prime Executor of an entity with respect to a certain action must be an Executor of that entity, or a Limited Executor of that entity who is permitted to perform that action on behalf of that entity.
\n
\n(c) If the Rules designate a Player to be the Prime Executor of an entity, without specifying particular actions that the Prime Executor is responsible for performing, then that Player is the Prime Executor of that entity with respect to all actions that the entity is required to perform.
\n
\n(d) Unless otherwise specified by the Rules, each Player is eir own Prime Executor.
\n
\n(e) If a Player is the sole Executor of an entity, then e is the Prime Executor of that entity. This provision does not apply to a Player who is the sole Limited Executor, but not the Executor, of an entity.
\n'),(38601,1990,404746,405011,' the Contestsmaster Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Nomic month.
\n
\nPWIN is the number of points required for a Player to achieve a win condition, as defined elsewhere in the Rules. PPP (Points Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.
\n
\nOnce during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.
\n
\nThe total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are listed the Notice is invalid.
\n
\nThe total number of Points that a single Player may receive from all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN divided by five. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is invalid for that Player only.
\n
\nThe posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.
\n'),(38602,1990,405011,405057,' single Nomic Agoran month.
\n
\nPWIN is the number of points required for a Player to achieve a win condition, as defined elsewhere in the Rules. PPP (Points Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.
\n
\nOnce during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.
\n
\nThe total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are listed the Notice is invalid.
\n
\nThe total number of Points that a single Player may receive from all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN divided by five. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is invalid for that Player only.
\n
\nThe posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.
\n'),(38603,1990,405057,405189,'A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Agoran month.
\n
\n is the number of points required for a Player to achieve a win condition, as defined elsewhere in the Rules. 100. PPP (Points Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.
\n
\nOnce during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.
\n
\nThe total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are listed the Notice is invalid.
\n
\nThe total number of Points that a single Player may receive from all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN divided by five. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is invalid for that Player only.
\n
\nThe posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.
\n'),(38604,1990,405189,405201,'A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Agoran month.
\n
\nPWIN is 100. PPPThe PLIMIT and PPP (Points Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty. are as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\nOnce during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.
\n
\nThe total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are listed the Notice is invalid.
\n
\n exceed PWIN divided by five. If the PLIMIT. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is invalid for that Player only.
\n
\nThe posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.
\n'),(38605,1990,405201,405271,'A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Agoran month.
\n
\nThe PLIMIT Players Points Limit and PPP (Points Points Per Player) Player are as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\nOnce during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.
\n
\n exceed PPP Points Per Player times the number of Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are listed the Notice is invalid.
\n
\n the PLIMIT. If Players Points Limit. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is invalid for that Player only.
\n
\nThe posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.
\n'),(38606,1991,404736,404967,' Target. E E may then distribute with these Proposals an Opposite Proposal for the Target. If If e does so, e may, Without 2 Objections, pay out 0.1 Papyri to eirself. emself.
\n
\n Target. An An Opposite Proposal shall have the same status as its Target, including AI, Sanity, Insanity, Urgentness, Disinterestedness, and Democraticity; except that, if the Target does not have an AI of at least 2, the Opposite Proposal shall be neither Democratic nor Sane.
\n
\n proposer. This This Rule takes precedence over all Rules which would impose such penalties.
\n'),(38607,1992,404754,404770,'A player is Sanctimonious if e satisfies all of the following conditiions:
\n
\n than emself, the Bank Bank, or Monastery which possesses Voting Entitlements, Zombies, or Stems. 7. E is Immaculate.
\n
\nA Sanctimonious player becomes a Monk by notifying the Registrar that e becomes a Monk, provided that e has been Sanctimonious for at least one week. The condition of being a Monk is revoked upon the beginning of a Nomic Week after the dissatisfaction of any of the aforementioned conditions for at least 48 hours, if and only if a player reports this dissatisfaction to the Registrar before the beginning of the week.
\n'),(38608,1992,404770,404786,' following conditiions: conditions:
\n
\n E is not a Zombie. 2. E is not a Zombie Master. 3. E possesses less than four times the Basic Officer Salary of Stems. 4. 2. E does not possess any Voting Entitlements. 5. Entitlement.s 3. E is a Senator. 6. 4. E is not the Executor or Limited Executor of any entity other than emself, the Bank, or Monastery which possesses Voting Entitlements, Zombies, Entitlements or Stems. 7. 5. E is Immaculate.
\n
\nA Sanctimonious player who has been Sanctimonious continuously for the most recent week becomes a Monk by notifying the Registrar that e becomes a Monk, provided that e has been Sanctimonious for at least one week. The condition of being Monk. Whenever a Monk is revoked upon the beginning of a Nomic Week after the dissatisfaction of any of the aforementioned has not satisfied all conditions for Sanctimony for at least 48 hours, if and only if a any player reports may report this dissatisfaction to the Registrar before Registrar. On the beginning Registrar\'s public confirmation of this report, the week. Monk ceases to be a Monk.
\n'),(38609,1993,404759,404924,'Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map). The Map is a record kept by the Office of the Mapkeepor.
\n
\nThe Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is a unique instance of nonfungible Property specified by a pair of integers known as its Latitude and Longitude.
\n
\nEvery unique pair of integers within the limits defined in the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of Land. No other Units of Land may exist. Units of Land may only be created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and Longitude defined in the Rules.
\n
\n between -25 -9 and +25, +9, inclusive. All values for Longitude must lie between -25 -9 and +25, +9, inclusive.
\n
\nThe Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.
\n'),(38610,1996,404762,404857,'There exists the Office of Mapkeepor, whose responsibilityThe Mapkeepor is to be the recordkeeper an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the Land of Arcadia. The Mapkeepor shall produce a Weekly Report including: Arcadia.
\n
\n(a) The OwnershipThe Mapkeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n(i) the ownership and Land Type land type of all existent Land; (b) All existing land; (ii) all changes in the Ownership ownership and Land Type land type of existent Land existing land since the most recent report; (c) The Location and (iii) the location of all Entities each entity or Instruments that have instrument with a defined Location. non-secret location.
\n'),(38611,1996,404857,404911,'The Mapkeepor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the Land of Arcadia.
\n
\nThe Mapkeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n location for the previous week and the current week of each entity or instrument with a defined non-secret location.
\n'),(38612,1996,404911,405097,'The Mapkeepor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the Land of Arcadia.
\n
\nThe Mapkeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n non-secret location. location. (iv) The number of action units available to each entity for the current week.
\n'),(38613,1997,404763,404925,' (a) Wilderness; Black; (b) Farmland; (c) Water; (d) Urbana.
\n
\nThe following Land Subtypes are permissible for Units of Wilderness: (a) Mountans; (b) Hills; (c) Forest; (d) Desert;
\n
\nThe following Land Subtypes are permissible for Units of Urbana: (a) City; (b) Road; (c) Aqueduct. White.
\n'),(38614,1997,404925,405142,' (b) White. White; (c) Purple.
\n'),(38615,1998,404764,404795,'Two Units of Land are Adjacent if neither their Latitudes nor their Longitudes differ by more than one from each other.
\n
\nThe Penguin Distance between two given Units of Land is the minimum number of Single Waddles required to Travel from one of the given Units to the other given Unit, where one Single Waddle is the Penguin Distance required to Travel from one Unit of Land to an Adjacent Unit of Land.
\n
\nOf a Land Unit: (1) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude greater by 1 is its Northern Neighbor. (2) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude less by 1 is its Southern Neighbor. (3) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude greater by 1 is its Eastern Neighbor. (4) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude less by 1 is its Western Neighbor.
\n
\nTwo Units of Land are said to be Connected by a specific Type or Subtype of Land if it is possible to travel from the first Unit to the second by Waddling only over Land of that specific Type or Subtype.
\n'),(38616,1998,404795,404926,' if neither their Latitudes nor and only if: (i) They have the same Latitude, and their Longitudes differ by more than one from each other. exactly one; or (ii) They have the same Longitude, and their Latitudes differ by exactly one.
\n
\nThe Penguin Distance between two given Units of Land is the minimum number of Single Waddles required to Travel from one of the given Units to the other given Unit, where one Single Waddle is the Penguin Distance required to Travel from one Unit of Land to an Adjacent Unit of Land.
\n
\nOf a Land Unit: (1) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude greater by 1 is its Northern Neighbor. (2) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude less by 1 is its Southern Neighbor. (3) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude greater by 1 is its Eastern Neighbor. (4) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude less by 1 is its Western Neighbor.
\n
\nTwo Units of Land are said to be Connected by a specific Type or Subtype of Land if it is possible to travel from the first Unit to the second by Waddling only over Land of that specific Type or Subtype.
\n'),(38617,2003,404781,404796,'Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units to move about in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nA player makes a Move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to the Destination. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nThe Mapkeepor\'s Report shall list, for each Player: * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the last week * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the current week
\n
\nPlayers may expend: * 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Mountains. * 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Hills. * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Forest or Desert. * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness with no Subtype. * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Farmland. * 1 Movement Unit to move into an adjacent unit of Type Urbana.
\n
\n becomes Winderness/Mountains; Wilderness/Mountains; * 0.20 probability it becomes Winderness/Hills; Wilderness/Hills; * 0.20 probability it becomes Winderness/Forest; Wilderness/Forest; * 0.10 probability it becomes Winderness/Desert; Wilderness/Desert; * 0.10 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype; * 0.30 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.
\n
\nThe random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.
\n
\nMoves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. Unless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.
\n'),(38618,2003,404796,404811,'Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units to move about in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nA player makes a Move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to the Destination. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nThe Mapkeepor\'s Report shall list, for each Player: * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the last week * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the current week
\n
\nPlayers may expend: * 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Mountains. * 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Hills. * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Forest or Desert. * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness with no Subtype. * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Farmland. * 1 Movement Unit to move into an adjacent unit of Type Urbana.
\n
\n * 0.15 probability it becomes the same type and subtype as the land at the location of the exploring Player; * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Mountains; * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Hills; * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Forest; * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Desert; * 0.10 0.05 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype; * 0.30 0.20 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.
\n
\nThe random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.
\n
\nMoves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. Unless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.
\n'),(38619,2003,404811,404912,' of Arcadia. Arcadia, and each Organization may expend up to 5 Movement Units. Movement Units are not transferrable, transferable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nA player makes a Move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to the Destination. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nThe Mapkeepor\'s Report shall list, for each Player: * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the last week * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the current week
\n
\nPlayers may expend: * 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Mountains. * 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Hills. * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Forest or Desert. * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness with no Subtype. * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Farmland. * 1 Movement Unit to move into an adjacent unit of Type Urbana.
\n
\nA player may also expend 10 Movement Units to Explore, by notifying the Mapkeepor that e does so. If a Player Explores, all units of Aether within a Penguin Distance of 2 from the Player\'s current location are assigned a new Land Type and possibly Subtype. For each unit of Aether affected, there is a: * 0.15 probability it becomes the same type and subtype as the land at the location of the exploring Player; * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Mountains; * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Hills; * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Forest; * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Desert; * 0.05 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype; * 0.20 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.
\n
\nThe random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.
\n
\nMoves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. Unless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.
\n'),(38620,2003,404912,404927,' Movement Units to move about in the Land of Arcadia, Units, and each an Organization may expend up to 5 Movement Units. Units, to move about in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferable, transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\n a Move move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to specifics of the Destination. move. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nPlayersEntities may expend: * 10 2 Movement Units to move into from one Land Unit to an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Mountains. Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether. * 5 5 Movement Units to move into from one Land Unit to an adjacent unit of Type Wilderness, Subtype Hills. Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether; * 3 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any Land Type Wilderness, Subtype Forest other than Aether, whether or Desert. not e is located at that Land Unit. * 3 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of set the Land Type Wilderness with no Subtype. * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type Farmland. * 1 Movement Unit the Entity\'s current location to move into an adjacent unit of any Land Type Urbana. of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.
\n
\nA player may also expend 10 Movement Units to Explore, by notifying the Mapkeepor that e does so. If a Player Explores, all units of Aether within a Penguin Distance of 2 from the Player\'s current location are assigned a new Land Type and possibly Subtype. For each unit of Aether affected, there is a: * 0.15 probability it becomes the same type and subtype as the land at the location of the exploring Player; * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Mountains; * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Hills; * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Forest; * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Desert; * 0.05 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype; * 0.20 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.
\n
\nThe random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.
\n
\nMoves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. UnlessUnless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.
\n'),(38621,2003,404927,404933,'Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units, and an Organization may expend up to 5 Movement Units, to move about in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nA player makes a move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the move. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a single week.
\n
\n Land Bureau. Bureau. * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination. This movement has no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. The Mapkeepor must announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this movement. The change occurs at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.
\n
\nUnless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.
\n'),(38622,2003,404933,405029,' Arcadia. Movement Movement Units are not transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\n move. So So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nEntities may expend: * 2 Movement Units toWhen a move from one Land Unit to specifies an adjacent Unit if their alternating Land Types are the same and Type, the destination is not Aether. * 5 Movement Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether; * 5 Movement Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any chosen will be based upon the Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at that Land Unit. * 10 Movement Units to set used as the previous alternating Land Type. The next Land Type of will be the Entity\'s current location to any one non-Aether Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit that is owned by defined next in the Rules, after the previous Land Bureau. * 10 Movement Units to set Type. If the previous Land Type of a random Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to any last Land Type of eir choice other than Aether. The Mapkeepor will make defined in the random determination. This movement has no effect Rules, or if there are no qualifying alternating Land Units. The Mapkeepor must announce which Type has ever been picked before, the next Land Unit, if any, Type is changed by this movement. The change occurs at the time of the first legal announcement from non-Aether Land Type defined in the Rules. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor declaring which of a move that specifies an alternating Land Unit\'s Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Type has changed. was used for that move.
\n
\nUnless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.Entities may expend:
\n'),(38623,2003,405029,405059,' week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units, and the number of Actions Units an Organization entity may expend up to 5 Movement Units, to move about perform actions in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next. Arcadia is as follows,
\n
\nA player makes a move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of- If the move. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Movement Units, entity is a Player may move as many times as e wishes 10 minus 1 for every 5 Blots in a single week. the Player\'s Stain
\n
\nWhen a move specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous alternating Land Type. The next Land Type will be the one non-Aether Land Type that is defined next in the Rules, after the previous Land Type.- If the previous Land Type entity is a Group 1 plus 3 for every Member of the last Land Type defined in the Rules, Group located on or if no alternating Land Type has ever been picked before, the next Land Type is adjacent to the first non-Aether Land Type defined in location of the Rules. As soon as possible after a Player notifies Group at the Mapkeepor start of a move that specifies an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Type was used for that move. week.
\n
\nEntities- All other entities zero.
\n
\nAction Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nAn entity may expend: expend Action Units to carry out an action in Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nWhen an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Type was used for that act.
\n
\nPlayers may expend:
\n
\n* 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether.
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;
\n
\nGroups may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the location of one of its Members.
\n
\nAny entity may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at that Land Unit.
\n
\n* 5 Movement Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination. This movement has no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this movement. The change occurs at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.
\n
\n* 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.
\n
\n* 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.
\n
\nUnless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions and moves in Arcadia are invalid.
\n'),(38624,2003,405059,405098,'Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,
\n
\n a Player 10 Player, 10, minus 1 for every 5 Blots in the Player\'s Stain Stain as recorded in the most recent Herald\'s report before the week started, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote owned by the Player.
\n
\n a Group 1 Group, 1, plus 3 for every Member of the Group located on or adjacent to the location of the Group at the start of the week. week, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote owned by the Group.
\n
\n- All other entities zero.
\n
\nAction Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nAn entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nWhen an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Type was used for that act.
\n
\nPlayers may expend:
\n
\n* 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether.
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;
\n
\nGroups may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the location of one of its Members.
\n
\nAny entity may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at that Land Unit.
\n
\n* 5 Movement Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination. This movement has no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this movement. The change occurs at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.
\n
\n* 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.
\n
\n* 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.
\n
\nUnless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions and moves in Arcadia are invalid.
\n'),(38625,2003,405098,405101,'Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,
\n
\n- If the entity is a Player, 10, minus 1 for every 5 Blots in the Player\'s Stain as recorded in the most recent Herald\'s report before the week started, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote owned by the Player.
\n
\n- If the entity is a Group, 1, plus 3 for every Member of the Group located on or adjacent to the location of the Group at the start of the week, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote owned by the Group.
\n
\n- All other entities zero.
\n
\nAction Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nAn entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nWhen an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Type was used for that act.
\n
\nPlayers may expend:
\n
\n* 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether.
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;
\n
\nGroups may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the location of one of its Members.
\n
\nAny entity may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at that Land Unit.
\n
\n 5 Movement Action Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination. This movement action has no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this movement. action. The change occurs at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.
\n
\n 10 Movement Action Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.
\n
\n 10 Movement Action Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.
\n
\nUnless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions and moves in Arcadia are invalid.
\n'),(38626,2003,405101,405107,'Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,
\n
\n the Player. Player at the start of the week.
\n
\n the Group. Group at the start of the week.
\n
\n- All other entities zero.
\n
\nAction Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nAn entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nWhen an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Type was used for that act.
\n
\nPlayers may expend:
\n
\n* 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether.
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;
\n
\nGroups may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the location of one of its Members.
\n
\nAny entity may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at that Land Unit.
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination. This action has no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this action. The change occurs at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.
\n
\n* 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.
\n
\n* 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.
\n
\nUnless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions and moves in Arcadia are invalid.
\n'),(38627,2003,405107,405130,'Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,
\n
\n- If the entity is a Player, 10, minus 1 for every 5 Blots in the Player\'s Stain as recorded in the most recent Herald\'s report before the week started, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote owned by the Player at the start of the week.
\n
\n- If the entity is a Group, 1, plus 3 for every Member of the Group located on or adjacent to the location of the Group at the start of the week, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote owned by the Group at the start of the week.
\n
\n- All other entities zero.
\n
\nAction Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one week to the next.
\n
\nAn entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act. So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single week.
\n
\nWhen an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Type was used for that act.
\n
\nPlayers may expend:
\n
\n* 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether.
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;
\n
\nGroups may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the location of one of its Members.
\n
\nAny entity may expend:
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at that Land Unit.
\n
\n* 5 Action Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination. This action has no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this action. The change occurs at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.
\n
\n* 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.
\n
\n* 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.
\n
\nUnless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions and moves in Arcadia are invalid.
\n'),(38628,2004,404792,404812,'As soon as possible after the tenth day of each Month, the Mapkeepor shall, if the number of units of Land held by players is less than one half the total number of units of Land, auction a number of units of Land not to exceed 10. The units of Land to be Auctioned are: * if there exist at least 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the possession of the Land Bureau: any 10 such Units of Land, to be chosen by the Mapkeepor; * if there exist fewer than 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the possession of the Land Bureau: all such Units.
\n
\n The Default Auction Currency shall be conducted in Indulgences. Indulgences; however, the Auctioneer may select a different Bank Currency with 2 Supporters.
\n'),(38629,2004,404812,404858,'As soon as possible after the tenth day of each Month, the Mapkeepor shall, if the number of units of Land held by players is less than one half the total number of units of Land, auction a number of units of Land not to exceed 10. The units of Land to be Auctioned are: * if there exist at least 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the possession of the Land Bureau: any 10 such Units of Land, to be chosen by the Mapkeepor; * if there exist fewer than 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the possession of the Land Bureau: all such Units.
\n
\n The Auctioneer shall be the Mapkeepor. * The Default Auction Currency shall be Indulgences; however, the Auctioneer may select a different Bank Currency with 2 Supporters.
\n'),(38630,2004,404858,405042,' of Private Land held by players is less than one half the total number of units of Land, auction a number of units of Land not to exceed 10. The units of Land to be Auctioned are: * if there exist at least 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the possession of the Land Bureau: any 10 such Units of Land, to be chosen by the Mapkeepor; * if there exist fewer than 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the possession of the Land Bureau: all such Units.
\n
\nThere shall be a separate Auction for each Unit of Land under consideration. These Auctions shall be conducted concurrently. For each of these Auctions: * The item to be Auctioned is the piece of Land in question. * The Procedure to be used is the Vickrey Auction. * The Default Auction Currency shall be Indulgences; however, the Auctioneer may select a different Bank Currency with 2 Supporters.
\n'),(38631,2005,404793,404813,' and publicly announce that e is imposing a Toll, clearly and unambiguously identify identifying the Unit of Land in question, as well as the amount of the Toll for that Unit of Land.
\n
\nA Toll is a number of VEs, Indulgences, or Papyri. No Unit of Land may have a Toll in other currencies, or in more than one of these currencies. No Toll shall be greater than 200 times the MUQ of the currency in which it is denominated. If a Player (the Tollee) Moves into a Unit of Land which is at the time owned by another Player (the Toller), and for which there is at the time a Toll established, e (the Tollee) is said to be In Toll to the Unit of Land in question, for the amount of the Toll on that unit of land (at the time of the Move)
\n
\nThe owner (Toller) of a Unit of Land may notify the Mapkeepor that e believes a Player has been In Toll to a Unit of Land owned by em; to do so, e submits a Notification of Toll, which must unambiguously describe the Unit of Land in question, the amount of the Toll, and the Player (alleged Tollee) in question. The alleged Move must have occurred within the past week. A Player may submit only one such Notification for a given Unit of Land in a single week, and may not submit substantially the same Notification two weeks in a row. Any Notification of Toll contrary to this Rule is invalid and shall be discarded.
\n
\nIf, in the Mapkeepor\'s determination, the alleged Tollee was in fact, in the week before the Notification, In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, the Mapkeepor shall confirm the Toll by publicly informing the Tollee and the Toller. The Tollee then incurs to the Toller a debt equal to the Toll specified in the Notification. If, in the Mapkeepor\'s determination, the alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e shall deny the Notification by informing the Toller of eir determination.
\n
\nIf the Mapkeepor fails to respond to a valid Notification of Toll, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Looking the Other Way. If the Mapkeepor confirms a Notification of Toll when in fact the alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3 Crime of Conspiracy to Commit Highway Robbery. If the Mapkeeper denies a Notification of Toll when in fact the alleged Tollee was In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3 Crime of Not Feeding the Toll Under the Bridge.
\n
\n e owns. If owns by publicly announcing that e does so. If a Player loses possession of a Unit of Land, all Tolls imposed on that Unit by that Player are removed.
\n'),(38632,2005,404813,405060,'A PlayerAn Entity who owns Land may impose a Toll on any (currently un-Tolled) piece of Land e owns. To do so, e must pay a Fee of 0.2 Indulgences and publicly announce that e is imposing a Toll, clearly and unambiguously identifying the Unit of Land in question, as well as the amount of the Toll for that Unit of Land.
\n
\n If a Player an entity (the Tollee) Moves into a Unit of Land which is at the time owned by another Player Entity (the Toller), and for which there is at the time a Toll established, e (the Tollee) is said to be In Toll to the Unit of Land in question, for the amount of the Toll on that unit of land (at the time of the Move)
\n
\n believes a Player an entity has been In Toll to a Unit of Land owned by em; to do so, e submits a Notification of Toll, which must unambiguously describe the Unit of Land in question, the amount of the Toll, and the Player Entity (alleged Tollee) in question. The alleged Move must have occurred within the past week. A Player Entity may submit only one such Notification for a given Unit of Land in a single week, and may not submit substantially the same Notification two weeks in a row. Any Notification of Toll contrary to this Rule is invalid and shall be discarded.
\n
\nIf, in the Mapkeepor\'s determination, the alleged Tollee was in fact, in the week before the Notification, In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, the Mapkeepor shall confirm the Toll by publicly informing the Tollee and the Toller. The Tollee then incurs to the Toller a debt equal to the Toll specified in the Notification. If, in the Mapkeepor\'s determination, the alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e shall deny the Notification by informing the Toller of eir determination.
\n
\nIf the Mapkeepor fails to respond to a valid Notification of Toll, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Looking the Other Way. If the Mapkeepor confirms a Notification of Toll when in fact the alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3 Crime of Conspiracy to Commit Highway Robbery. If the Mapkeeper denies a Notification of Toll when in fact the alleged Tollee was In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3 Crime of Not Feeding the Toll Under the Bridge.
\n
\nA PlayerAn Entity may remove a Toll from any Tolled Unit of Land e owns by publicly announcing that e does so. If a Player an entity loses possession of a Unit of Land, all Tolls imposed on that Unit by that Player Entity are removed.
\n'),(38633,2006,404790,404841,'As soon as possible after a player becomes a Dissolute, the Notary shall initiate an Auction for the privilege of Looting the Corpse of the Dissolute. Once a Looting Auction begins, the Notary may not transfer property on behalf of the Dissolute until either the Auction ends without any winning bids or the winning bidder defaults on eir bid or loses eir privilege to Loot the Corpse of that Dissolute.
\n
\nLooting Auctions shall follow the default procedure for Auctions with the following modifications:
\n
\n The Auctioneer shall be the Notary. (2) The Auction Currency shall be Indulgences. (3) (2) The Starting Price shall be the number of Blots the Dissolute had when e became a Dissolute, or one Indulgence if the Dissolute was Immaculate. (4) (3) The Auction shall be for a temporary privilege, not for an item, and so no debt of items to the winning Bidder when eir bill is paid shall be incurred.
\n
\nIf there are no winning bids for the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that Dissolute, the Notary must, as soon as possible after the end of the Looting Auction, transfer all the Dissolute\'s property to the Bank.
\n
\nWhen the winning bidder pays eir bill from the Looting Auction, e gains the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that Dissolute; e becomes a Limited Executor of the Dissolute, with the authority to transfer property from the Dissolute to emself. One week after e gains this privilege, e loses it, and ceases to be a Limited Executor of the Dissolute. If the Dissolute still has property after the winning bidder loses this privilege, the Notary must transfer the Dissolute\'s remaining property to the Bank as soon as possible afterward.
\n'),(38634,2010,404805,404876,'As(a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall bill each non-Elder Oligarch 0.1 VEs. The GWotO shall remove from the Oligarchy any
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch who does not pay a debt resulting from this Rule eir Oligarchy Upkeep within 7 days a week of the GWotO\'s announcement of such a debt. the debt, then the GWotO shall forgive the Upkeep debt, and remove the Oligarch from the Oligarchy.
\n'),(38635,2010,404876,404965,'(a) As soon as possible after At the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall bill each non-Elder Oligarch 0.1 VEs. who has occupied eir position in the Oligarchy for at least the previous 21 days as follows: (1) for an Oligarch who is a Politician, the Base Seating Fee; (2) for an Oligarch who is not a Politician, twice the Base Seating Fee.
\n
\n(b) If an Oligarch does not pay eir Oligarchy Upkeep within a week of the GWotO\'s announcement of the debt, then the GWotO shall forgive the Upkeep debt, and remove the Oligarch from the Oligarchy.
\n'),(38636,2010,404965,405025,'(a) At the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall bill each Oligarch who has occupied eir position in the Oligarchy for at least the previous 21 days as follows: (1) for an Oligarch who is a Politician, the Base Seating Fee; (2) for an Oligarch who is not a Politician, twice the Base Seating Fee.
\n
\n shall forgive the Upkeep debt, and remove the Oligarch from the Oligarchy. Oligarchy, and Order the Bank to forgive the Upkeep debt.
\n'),(38637,2011,404810,405032,' determined as follows:
\n
\n- Let FOUL be the number of Stems owned by the Bank, multiplied by the Foul Weather Factor as set in the Treasuror\'s Budget, and then rounded up to the nearest integer. - Let PLENTY be the number of Stems owned by all Entities, excluding the Bank. - Let SAME and FAIR both be the sum of FOUL and PLENTY, divided by 4, rounding up to the nearest integer. - Let TOTAL by the sum of FOUL, PLENTY, SAME, and FAIR. - The weather shall be determined using the following probabilities: 0.20 (FOUL / TOTAL) Foul. 0.30 (FAIR / TOTAL) Fair. 0.20 (PLENTY / TOTAL) Plenty. 0.30 (SAME / TOTAL) Same as the previous month.
\n
\nWhen the Treasuror posts eir Determination of the Weather for a month, the following events shall occur in the listed sequence immediately after the Weather is Determined:
\n
\n Income, multiplied by the Weather Intensity Factor as set in the Treasuror\'s Budget, and then rounded up to the nearest integer, shall be Destroyed. If If this value is greater than the number of Stems in the Possession of the Bank, all the Stems in the Possession of the Bank shall be Destroyed instead. (b) A number of Stems shall be Created in the Bank\'s Possession, equal to the number Destroyed in (a) above multiplied by: 0.50 if the Weather is Foul; 1.00 if the Weather is Fair; 1.50 if the Weather is Plenty.
\n
\nThe Treasuror shall announce the number of Stems Created and Destroyed by this Rule in the message in which e announces the Weather.
\n'),(38638,2012,404844,404972,' Auction. The The procedure for conducting a Single-Bid Auction is the same as that used in the Default Auction Procedure, with the following additions and exceptions:
\n
\n(1) Bid Inflation Factor: As part of any correct and legal announcement that a Single-Bid Auction is commencing, the Auctioneer must announce the value of the Bid Inflation Factor for the Auction, a real number between 0 and 1 inclusive.
\n
\n(2) Making Bids: Each Player eligible to bid in the Auction is permitted to make only one bid, called the initial Bid. Any bids made by a Player after eir initial Bid in the Auction are invalid. A Player who cancels eir bid is ineligible to make further bids in the Auction. All Bids must be made publically.
\n
\n(3) Value of Bids: at each midnight GMT during the Auction, the value of each valid, uncancelled Bid remaining in the Auction is increased by an amount equal to the Bid Inflation Factor multiplied by the initial Bid.
\n
\n(4) Final Auction Price: for the purposes of determining the Winner(s) of the Auction, the value of each Bid as calculated in (3) above is used. However, the debt incurred by a Winner of the Auction is equal to the Nth highest Winning Initial Bid, where N is the number of items being Auctioned, or to the Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N bids.
\n'),(38639,2012,404972,405114,'(a) ThereThere is a type of Auction auction called a Single-Bid Auction. single-bid auction. The procedure for conducting a Single-Bid Auction single-bid auction is the same as that used in the Default Auction Procedure, default auction procedure, with the following additions and exceptions:
\n
\n(1)(a) Bid Inflation Factor: inflation factor: As part of any correct and legal announcement that a Single-Bid Auction single-bid auction is commencing, the Auctioneer must announce the value of the Bid Inflation Factor bid inflation factor for the Auction, auction, a real number between 0 and 1 inclusive.
\n
\n(2)(b) Making Bids: Each Player bids: each player eligible to bid in the Auction auction is permitted to make only one bid, called the initial Bid. bid. Any bids made by a Player player after eir initial Bid bid in the Auction auction are invalid. A Player A player who cancels eir bid is ineligible to make further bids in the Auction. All Bids auction. All bids must be made publically.
\n
\n(3)(c) Value of Bids: bids: at each midnight GMT during the Auction, auction, the value of each valid, uncancelled Bid bid remaining in the Auction auction is increased by an amount equal to the Bid Inflation Factor bid inflation factor multiplied by the initial Bid. bid.
\n
\n(4) Final(d) End of auction: the auction ends if any of the following occur:
\n
\n(1) one week has passed from the start of the auction, and no bids have been made; or
\n
\n(2) a bid has been made in the auction, and there has been no change in the N highest initial bids for 72 hours; or
\n
\n(3) fourteen days have passed since the Auction Price: began.
\n
\n(e) Final auction price: for the purposes of determining the Winner(s) winner(s) of the Auction, auction, the value of each Bid bid as calculated in (3) (c) above is used. However, However, the debt incurred by a Winner winner of the Auction auction is equal to the Nth highest Winning Initial Bid, winning initial bid, where N is the number of items being Auctioned, auctioned, or to the Starting Bid, starting bid, if there were fewer than N bids.
\n'),(38640,2013,404849,405277,'AIf no Champion\'s Contest may exists, the Scorekeepor or the Speaker may, with 2 Support, name an existing Contest to be a Champion\'s Contest if Contest. The namers are encouraged to select Contests that they feel would give the maximum enjoyment to Agorans as a whole, and only if: (i) its Contestmaster bears give preference to Contests run by Players who were members of the Patent Title Current Champion; (ii) no other most recently winning team.
\n
\nThe Contestmaster of a Champion\'s Contest is ceases to be a member of any team, rules to the contrary nonwithstanding. If e ceases to be Contestmaster of a Champion\'s Contest; (iii) Contest, e shall be assigned to a team as if e were a new Player.
\n
\nEach Champion\'s Contest begins with zero awardable points, as tracked by the Scorekeepor. At the beginning of each month, the Contest\'s Regulations state that it is a awardable points are increased by the Champion\'s Contest. If any Grant contained in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\nA Champion\'s Contest Contestmaster may publish a Notice of Award, listing a positive number of these criteria cease Points to be true, awarded to a team or teams. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained in the Contest\'s SLC, and award no more than the Contest\'s awardable points, to be valid.
\n
\nThe effect of a valid Notice of Award is to increase the named teams\' points as indicated, and decrease the Contest\'s awardable points by the same amount.
\n
\nWhen a Team Win occurs, any Champion\'s Contest immediately ceases being to be a Champion\'s Contest. Contest and loses all awardable points.
\n'),(38641,2015,404851,405054,'Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, the Winner\'s Stipend may not be changed except as permitted by this Rule.
\n
\nIf a Player Wins the Game by Bearing the Patent Title SemiGenius, The Winner\'s Stipend shall be set equal to proportion, rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.1, of Active Players (out of total number of Active Players at the time of the Win) that were Contestants, at any time since the most recent previous Win, in the Champion\'s Contest that Awarded that Patent Title.
\n
\nIn this case, the Scorekeepor shall pay out the Champion\'s Pension, equal to this new Winner\'s Stipend times the BOS, to the Contestmaster who awarded the Patent Title.
\n
\nIf a Player Wins the Game by any other Win Condition, the Winner\'s Stipend shall be set to 0.5, and no Champion\'s Pension shall be awarded.
\n
\n consecutive Nomic Agoran months without a Win occuring, then at the beginning each month thereafter, until a Win occurs, the Scorekeepor shall Bill the Player an amount equal to twice the current Winner\'s Stipend times the BOS.
\n'),(38642,2016,404867,405049,'(a) A null Proposal is a Proposal containing no provisions, i.e., one that does not propose any Rule Changes, or any other changes to the game state.
\n
\n Distributable without without payment of the usual Fee, provided that no other null Proposal in the current Agoran Month has been made Distributable under this provision.
\n
\n each Nomic Agoran Month is a Contested Proposal.
\n
\n(d) A Contested Proposal is Democratic.
\n
\n on Proposals, Proposals, voting on a Contested Proposal is always Unrestricted. This Rule takes precedence over Rules that determine the permissible methods for casting votes on Proposals.
\n
\n(f) If a Contested Proposal fails Quorum, no Points are Awarded.
\n
\n fails, each each Player who voted against the Proposal and did not vote for it may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n
\n(h) If a Contested Proposal is adopted, each Player who voted for the Proposal and did not vote against it may be Awarded 10 Points.
\n'),(38643,2017,404882,405530,'A entity\'s Stain is a measureThe stain of an entity is an index measuring how unclean that entity\'s cleanliness, measured in Blots. The Stain of each entity is. An entity is immaculate, or squeaky clean, if its stain is at all times a non-negative number. zero.
\n
\nIf the Rules state that an entity gains, is assessed, or is penalised some a given number of Blots, then, then as soon as possible after the Herald is informed informed, either by emself or by others, of the change, e shall record an increase in that entity\'s stain of that amount in the entity\'s Stain. (If (or half that amount if the entity was is an Unready Player unready player at the time of the change, then the Herald shall instead record an increase of half that amount.) change).
\n
\nIf the Rules state that some number of a an entity\'s Blots are expunged, then, then as soon as possible after the Herald is informed of the change, e shall record a decrease of that amount in the entity\'s Stain. (If stain. If this would result in a negative Stain, stain, then it instead results in a Stain stain of zero.) zero.
\n'),(38644,2018,404883,405181,'When anA non-Immaculate entity transfers an amount may expunge a number of Indulgences eir Blots, up to eir total Stain, by announcing the Bank, and specifies in the Notice number of Transfer that the transfer is for the purpose of expunging the eir Blots of e expunges; this has a specified entity, then an equal amount Fee of the entity\'s Blots are expunged. (If the amount of the transfer exceeds the entity\'s Stain at the time of the transfer, then all of the entity\'s Blots are expunged, and the Bank incurs an Indulgence debt to the transferor equal to the amount of the original transfer minus the entity\'s previous Stain.) 2 Kudos per expunged Blot.
\n'),(38645,2019,404890,405312,' all Oligarchs, Shareholders, rounded down.
\n'),(38646,2019,405312,405389,''),(38647,2019,405389,405473,' the Voting Period voting period of an Ordinary Proposal, ordinary proposal, the Speaker may Veto veto that Proposal proposal with the Support support of one-third of all Shareholders, shareholders, rounded down. down. When e does so, the proposal becomes extraordinary.
\n'),(38648,2019,405473,405583,'At any time duringDuring the voting period of an ordinary a non-democratic proposal, the Speaker may veto that proposal it, with the support of one-third of all shareholders, rounded down. two support. When e does so, the adoption index of that proposal becomes extraordinary. is increased by one.
\n'),(38649,2019,405583,405640,'During theThe Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a non-democratic proposal, vetoed proposal fails quorum, the Speaker may veto it, with two support. When Assessor shall a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool. When e does so, the that copy shall become distributable and democratic, and its adoption index of that proposal is shall be increased by one. one.
\n
\nThe Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary proposal is three, other rules governing quorum nonwithstanding.
\n'),(38650,2019,405640,405654,'The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n
\n shall place a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool. When When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and democratic, and its adoption index shall be increased by one.
\n
\nThe Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary proposal is three, other rules governing quorum nonwithstanding.
\n'),(38651,2019,405654,405752,'The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n
\n the Assessor Promotor shall place add a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool. When When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and democratic, and its adoption index shall be increased by one.
\n
\nThe Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary proposal is three, other rules governing quorum nonwithstanding.
\n'),(38652,2019,405752,405761,'The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a vetoed proposal fails quorum, the Promotor shall add a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool. When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and democratic, and its adoption index shall be increased by one.
\n
\n quorum nonwithstanding. notwithstanding.
\n'),(38653,2019,405761,405998,' announcement. Whenever Quorum for a vetoed proposal is vetoed, its quorum is set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal plus one, positive infinity, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a vetoed proposal fails quorum, the Promotor shall add a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool. When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and democratic, and its adoption index shall be increased by one.
\n
\nTheThe Speaker may Rubberstamp rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary proposal is three, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n'),(38654,2019,405998,406523,'TheAs soon as possible after the beginning of the month, the Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a vetoed proposal is positive infinity, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding. different Prerogative for the remainder of that 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.
\n
\nThe Speaker may rubberstamp following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become holder of a vacant office by announcement, unless e is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an Ordinary Proposal ordinary proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary proposal is three, other rules governing in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38655,2019,406523,406567,'As soon as possible after the beginning of the month, the Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the remainder of that 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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\n vacant elected office by announcement, unless e is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nc) 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.
\n
\nd) 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.
\n'),(38656,2019,406567,406570,'As soon as possible afterIn a timely fashion before the beginning of the each month, the Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the remainder of that 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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nc) 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.
\n
\nd) 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.
\n'),(38657,2019,406570,432298,'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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\n ordinary proposal decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\n ordinary proposal decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38658,2019,432298,432318,' upcoming month. If month by announcement. 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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38659,2019,432318,496748,' each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. If 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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38660,2019,496748,496811,'In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. 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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Default Justice. Whenever Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done so, then the Clerk of the Courts assigns a judicial panel, e SHALL NOT assign one with a panel to that case during this period. If the Default Justice as Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a member, unless no such panel including (if the case is eligible to be so assigned. hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38661,2019,496811,496826,'In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. 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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case during this period. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\ne) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise (rounded using the same method as the weekly update of EVLOD), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38662,2019,496826,496840,' SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. 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.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case during this period. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\ne) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise (rounded using the same method as the weekly update of EVLOD), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38663,2019,496840,496907,'In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the larger set take part in the assignment.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\n this period. period, unless either no panels eligible to be so assigned include the Justiciar, or all of them do. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\ne) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise (rounded using the same method as the weekly update of EVLOD), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38664,2019,496907,496909,'In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the larger set take part in the assignment.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case during this period, unless either no panels eligible to be so assigned include the Justiciar, or all of them do. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\n (rounded using the same method as to the weekly update of EVLOD), nearest integer, breaking ties toward odd integers), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(38665,2019,496909,405999,'In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, theThe Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. If there are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the larger set take part in the assignment. Quorum for a vetoed proposal is positive infinity, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n
\nThe following Prerogatives are defined:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case during this period, unless either no panels eligible to be so assigned include the Justiciar, or all of them do. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.
\n
\nc) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
\n
\nd) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN Speaker may rubberstamp an ordinary decision Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\ne) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has announcement. Quorum for a voting limit on that rubberstamped proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise (rounded to the nearest integer, breaking ties toward odd integers), is three, other rules to the contrary governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n'),(38666,2019,405999,406163,'The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a vetoed proposal is positive infinity, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n
\nThe Speaker may rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped proposal is three, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
\n'),(38667,2020,404919,404998,' 1. Communications For the First Estate, communications from Oligarch Acolyte Players or their executors which that would have been legal votes if the Proposal had been Ordinary. Sane. 2. Communications For the Second Estate, communications from non-Oligarch Politician Players or their executors which that would have been legal votes if the Proposal had been Democratic. Sane. 3. Public For the Third Estate, communications from an untainted Speaker, indicating a Veto of Scribe Players or their executors that would have been legal votes if the Proposal. Proposal had been Sane.
\n
\nIfFor each Estate, if the preliminary votes of the Oligarch Players (both voting index and quorum, with the exception in that the Speaker\'s Veto does not affect this determination of quorum) would have passed the Proposal were they deemed to be Ordinary Votes on an Ordinary Proposal, the Oligarchy shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote FOR the Proposal, otherwise the Oligarchy will be deemed to have cast 1 vote AGAINST.
\n
\nIf the preliminary votes of the non-Oligarch Players Estate (both voting index and quorum) would have passed the Proposal were they deemed to be Democratic Votes votes on a Democratic Sane Proposal, the Democracy then that Estate shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote FOR the Proposal, otherwise the Democracy will be deemed to have cast 1 vote AGAINST.
\n
\nIf the untainted Speaker Vetoed the Proposal, the Speakership Proposal; otherwise, that Estate shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote AGAINST the Proposal, otherwise the Speakership shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote FOR the Proposal.
\n
\nThe The timing of all votes cast on Parliamentary Proposals shall be deemed to be an instant before the end of the Voting Period. There are no other specific mechanisms for casting votes on Parliamentary Proposals.
\n'),(38668,2020,404998,405084,'For a Parliamentary Proposal, the Assessor will count as "Preliminary Votes" after the voting period has ended: 1. For the(a) The First Estate, communications from Acolyte Estate consists of all Players or their executors that would have been legal votes if the Proposal had been Sane. 2. For who are Acolytes, the Second Estate, communications from Politician Estate of all Players or their executors that would have been legal votes if the Proposal had been Sane. 3. For who are Politicians, and the Third Estate, communications from Scribe Estate of all Players or their executors that would have been legal votes if the Proposal had been Sane. who are Scribes.
\n
\nFor(b) To count the votes on a parliamentary proposal, the Assessor shall first count as preliminary votes all communications from Players and their Executors that would have been legal votes on the proposal if it had been sane.
\n
\n(c) For each Estate, if the Assessor shall then use the preliminary votes of the Players in that Estate (both to determine a voting index and quorum) would have passed for the Proposal were they deemed to be Democratic votes Estate on a Sane Proposal, the Proposal. If the voting index is greater than or equal to the adoption index of the proposal, then that the Estate shall be is deemed to have cast 1 vote FOR the Proposal; proposal; otherwise, that the Estate shall be is deemed to have cast 1 one vote AGAINST the Proposal. proposal. The timing of all votes cast on Parliamentary Proposals shall be Estates are deemed to be an instant have cast their votes a moment before the end of the Voting Period. There are no other specific mechanisms voting period.
\n
\n(d) Quorum for casting votes parliamentary proposals is determined using preliminary votes, and is calculated as it would be for a democratic proposal.
\n
\n(e) Votes cannot be cast on Parliamentary Proposals. parliamentary proposals except as described in this Rule.
\n'),(38669,2021,404920,404979,'The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is initially 0.1 Voting Entitlements. Any Politician may change the Chamber of a Proposal that is not Sane to another Chamber of eir choice, by publicly paying this fee, provided that it is legal for the Proposal to be in the new Chamber. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule:
\n
\n(i) The Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled; (ii) If the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics intact.
\n
\n Proposal that is not already Sane and for which the Voting Period has not ended. If this happens, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere, but remains Distributable and becomes Democratic and Sane.
\n'),(38670,2021,404979,404999,'The(a) The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is initially 0.1 Voting Entitlements. Any Politician may change the Chamber of a Proposal that is not Sane to another Chamber of eir choice, by publicly publically paying this fee, Fee, provided that it is legal for the Proposal to be in the new Chamber. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule: Chamber.
\n
\n(i) The(b) When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule: (1) the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled; (ii) If and (2) if the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics intact.
\n
\nAn(c) An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which the Voting Period has not ended. If this happens, the Speaker Sanitises a Proposal, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere, but elsewhere; the Proposal remains Distributable and Distributable, but becomes Democratic and Sane.
\n'),(38671,2021,404999,405165,' is initially 0.1 Voting Entitlements. Any Politician may change a Fee for changing the Chamber of a Proposal that is not Sane to another Proposal. For any given Proposal, the Chamber of eir choice, by publically paying this Fee, provided that it Fee is legal for the Proposal to be in the new Chamber. initially 1.
\n
\n(b) When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule: (1) the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled; and (2) if the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics intact.
\n
\n(c) An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which the Voting Period has not ended. If the Speaker Sanitises a Proposal, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere; the Proposal remains Distributable, but becomes Democratic and Sane.
\n'),(38672,2021,405165,405333,' initially 1. 1. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule, the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled.
\n
\n(b) When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule: (1) the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled; and (2) if the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics intact.
\n
\n(c) An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which the Voting Period has not ended. If the Speaker Sanitises a Proposal, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere; the Proposal remains Distributable, but becomes Democratic and Sane.
\n'),(38673,2021,405333,405472,'(a) The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is a Fee for changing the Chamber of a Proposal. For any given Proposal, the Chamber Fee is initially 1. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule, the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled.
\n
\n may Sanitise Sanitize a Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which the Voting Period has not ended. If the Speaker Sanitises a Proposal, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere; the Proposal remains Distributable, but becomes Democratic and Sane. ended.
\n'),(38674,2022,404928,405020,'On the fifteenth of each Nomic Month, the following actions occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:
\n
\n Land Unit Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by its own type to a unit of Aether Aether, shall be transformed to Aether; Aether.
\n
\n(ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.
\n
\n(iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.
\n
\n(iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.
\n
\n of each any Land Unit that has Sente as and is not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau Bureau: * 3 Stems if the Weather is Plenty; * 2 Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Fair; Fair, 2 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * 1 Stem if the Weather is Foul. Foul, 1 Stem for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns;
\n
\nSente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on the fifteenth of each Nomic Month.
\n'),(38675,2022,405020,405043,'On the fifteenth of each Nomic Month, the following actions occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:
\n
\n(i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to Aether.
\n
\n(ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.
\n
\n(iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.
\n
\n(iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.
\n
\n Players and Groups whose location has Sente; (b) to the owner of any Land Unit that has Sente and is not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau: * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns;
\n
\nSente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on the fifteenth of each Nomic Month.
\n'),(38676,2022,405043,405061,' each Nomic Agoran Month, the following actions occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:
\n
\n(i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to Aether.
\n
\n(ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.
\n
\n(iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.
\n
\n(iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.
\n
\n(v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out: (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players and Groups whose location has Sente; (b) to the owner of any Land Unit that has Sente and is not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau: * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns;
\n
\n each Nomic Agoran Month.
\n'),(38677,2022,405061,405131,'On the fifteenth of each Agoran Month, the following actions occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:
\n
\n(i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to Aether.
\n
\n(ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.
\n
\n(iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.
\n
\n(iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.
\n
\n Players and Groups whose location has Sente; (b) to the owner of any Land Unit that has Sente and is not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau: * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns;
\n
\nSente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on the fifteenth of each Agoran Month.
\n'),(38678,2022,405131,404975,' each Agoran Nomic Month, the following actions occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:
\n
\n(i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to Aether.
\n
\n(ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.
\n
\n(iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.
\n
\n(iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.
\n
\n of any each Land Unit that has Sente and as is not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau: Bureau * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Fair, Plenty; * 2 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Foul, Fair; * 1 Stem for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; if the Weather is Foul.
\n
\n each Agoran Nomic Month.
\n'),(38679,2023,404936,405113,' the Courts. This takes precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties and roles regarding a CFJ to the Clerk of the Courts.
\n
\nAll persons are encouraged to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar only when there is a good reason not to submit it to the Clerk of the Courts.
\n'),(38680,2024,404939,405318,'Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement submitted in a single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.
\n
\nThe Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of each of those CFJs in a single message.
\n
\nIf one or more Linked CFJs are Excess CFJs, then the Clerk of the Courts shall either assign them all or dismiss them all, at eir discretion. If e assigns them all, then e does not commit Allowing Excess CFJing by doing so, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those CFJs. The Clerk of the Courts shall either treat those CFJs as Linked (to each other) or not Linked, as e sees fit. In either case, those CFJs are no longer Linked to any of the non-remanded CFJs.
\n
\nIf a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still assigned.
\n'),(38681,2024,405318,405403,'Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement submitted in a single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.
\n
\nThe Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of each of those CFJs in a single message.
\n
\nIf one or more Linked CFJs are Excess CFJs, then the Clerk of the Courts shall either assign them all or dismiss them all, at eir discretion. If e assigns them all, then e does not commit Allowing Excess CFJing by doing so, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those CFJs. The Clerk of the Courts shall either treat those CFJs as Linked (to each other) or not Linked, as e sees fit. In either case, those CFJs are no longer Linked to any of the non-remanded CFJs.
\n
\n message, or if a Trial Judge is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still assigned.
\n'),(38682,2024,405403,405706,' Judgement that are submitted in a single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.
\n
\nA Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a second judge by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and unlinking the first CFJ with any it was previously linked to, with the second judge\'s consent and provided the second judge has not been barred or recused from the first CFJ.
\n
\nThe Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of each of those CFJs in a single message.
\n
\n CFJs are Excess CFJs, then the Clerk of the Courts shall either assign them all or dismiss them all, at eir discretion. If e assigns them all, then e does not commit Allowing Excess CFJing by doing so, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those CFJs. The Clerk of the Courts shall either treat those CFJs as Linked (to each other) or not Linked, as e sees fit. In either case, those CFJs are no longer Linked to any of the non-remanded CFJs.
\n
\nIf a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still assigned.
\n
\nA CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts may dismiss any Excess CFJ.
\n'),(38683,2024,405706,405763,' clearly labelled labeled as Linked CFJs.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.
\n
\nA Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a second judge by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and unlinking the first CFJ with any it was previously linked to, with the second judge\'s consent and provided the second judge has not been barred or recused from the first CFJ.
\n
\nThe Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of each of those CFJs in a single message.
\n
\nIf one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those CFJs.
\n
\nIf a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still assigned.
\n
\nA CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts may dismiss any Excess CFJ.
\n'),(38684,2024,405763,405777,'Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement that are submitted in a single message and clearly labeled as Linked CFJs.
\n
\nWhen submitting Linked CFJs, the players (if any) barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only players e may bar from judging any of the other CFJs.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.
\n
\nA Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a second judge by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and unlinking the first CFJ with any it was previously linked to, with the second judge\'s consent and provided the second judge has not been barred or recused from the first CFJ.
\n
\nThe Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of each of those CFJs in a single message.
\n
\nIf one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those CFJs.
\n
\nIf a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still assigned.
\n
\nA CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts may dismiss any Excess CFJ.
\n'),(38685,2024,405777,405778,' Judgement deemed to be sufficiently similar that are submitted in they should have a single message and clearly labeled as Linked CFJs. judge.
\n
\nWhen submitting Linked CFJs, the players (if any) barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only players e may barLinkage is transitive. When a set of one or more linked CFJs change jurisdiction, they remain linked to each other, but become unlinked from judging any of the other CFJs. CFJs; they may become linked to one or more CFJs within the new jurisdiction.
\n
\nThe Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of LinkedMultiple CFJs, as if they were submitted in a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, message and is simultaneously assigned clearly labelled as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs. CFJs, become linked. The players (if any) barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only players e may bar from judging the others.
\n
\nA Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJThe Clerk of the Courts shall not assign judges directly to the members of a set of Linked CFJs, but shall assign a second judge by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and unlinking to the first CFJ with any set, as if it was previously linked to, with a single CFJ. The judge must be eligible to judge each member of the second judge\'s consent set, and provided the second is simultaneously assigned as judge has not been barred or recused from of each member of the first CFJ. set.
\n
\nThe Judge judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement judgement of each of those CFJs in a single message.
\n
\nIfA trial judge may remand one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those linked CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e Courts by announcement. E ceases to be Judge of those CFJs. their judge.
\n
\nIf a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from twoA trial judge may transfer one or more Linked of eir CFJs in a single message, or if to a Trial Judge is simultaneously second trial judge by announcement (identifying one of the second judge\'s CFJs), provided that the second judge consents, and automatically recused from two or more Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each other, but not is eligible to any other judge all of them. The transferred CFJs become linked to which the Judge is still assigned.
\n
\nA second judge\'s CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts may dismiss (and any Excess CFJ. others to which it is already linked).
\n'),(38686,2025,404944,404991,'The Judge of a(a) A CFJ (the First Case) may transfer it is transferred to the Judge of another CFJ (the Second Case), if all of the following are true:
\n
\na) The(1) the Second Judge is eligible to Judge the First Case (or is ineligible solely due to the Rule "Turns for All"). b) The All"); (2) the First Judge announces the transfer. c) The transfer; and (3) the Second Judge consents to the transfer within a week after it is announced.
\n
\nThe First CFJ becomes assigned to the Second Judge, and ceases to be assigned to(b) When the First Judge. Case is transferred in this way:
\n
\nThe(1) the First Case is assigned to the Second Judge, and ceases to be assigned to the First Judge; (2) the First Judge becomes eligible to Judge CFJs for the purposes of the Rule "Turns for All"; and (3) the First CFJ becomes Linked to the Second CFJ, and to any CFJs to which the Second CFJ had been Linked. It It ceases to be Linked to any other CFJs.
\n'),(38687,2026,404957,405613,'As soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce that this has happened.
\n
\n the Appelate Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is overturned. The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appelate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.
\n'),(38688,2027,404966,404994,'At any time at which the number of Oligarchs is less than Quorum for an Ordinary Proposal, the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy may do either of the following:
\n
\n(a) conduct an Auction for positions in the Oligarchy sufficient (but no more than this) to bring the number of Oligarchs up to Quorum for an Ordinary Proposal;
\n
\n if he e is not a Politician, provided that payment is made within a week of the appointment.
\n'),(38689,2027,404994,405158,' may do either of the following:
\n
\n(a) conduct an Auction for positions in the Oligarchy sufficient (but no more than this) to bring the number of Oligarchs up to Quorum for an Ordinary Proposal;
\n
\n(b) appoint any eligible Player to be an Oligarch, with the Support of the appointed Player and Without 3 Objections. The appointed Player becomes an Oligarch upon payment of the Base Seating Fee if e is a Politician, or twice the Base Seating Fee if e is not a Politician, provided that payment is made within with a week term of service equal to half of the appointment. Oligarchic Term.
\n'),(38690,2030,404980,404989,''),(38691,2031,404984,405012,' the Contestsmaster Contestmaster of more than one Money Grubbing Contest in a single Nomic month.
\n'),(38692,2031,405012,405058,' single Nomic Agoran month.
\n'),(38693,2032,404986,405224,'If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal, who:
\n
\n is Turning Around And Around; turned;
\n
\nthen that selection shall stand and the selected Player shall become a Judge of that CFJ or Appeal, as if e had been eligible to judge it.
\n'),(38694,2032,405224,405245,''),(38695,2032,405245,405320,'If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal, who:
\n
\na) e believes at the time of selection to be eligible to judge the CFJ or Appeal; and b) is not eligible to judge the CFJ or Appeal at the time of selection solely because e is turned;
\n
\n judge it. it; unless the Clerk of the Courts points out eir error and makes a new selection before the selected Player returns Judgement.
\n'),(38696,2034,405016,405374,'Any Proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change an entity\'s vote on an Issue for which the voting period has begun but for which no official voting report has been published at the time of the Proposal\'s adoption shall be wholly without effect, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nOnce an official voting report has been published for that Issue, no votes on that Issue may be changed or cancelled, and the outcome of the Issue may not be changed in any way, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting the results of voting on Issues.
\n
\nIf the results of an issue are not challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced results are the true results of that issue, even if they would otherwise be in error.
\n'),(38697,2034,405374,405577,'Any Proposal proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change an entity\'s vote the validity of one or more of a voter\'s ballots on an Issue for which the Agoran decision whose voting period has begun but for which no official voting report has not yet been published at the time of the Proposal\'s adoption resolved shall be wholly without effect, any Rule rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\n an official voting report Agoran decision has been published for that Issue, resolved, no votes ballots on that Issue decision may be changed validly submitted or cancelled, retracted, and the outcome of the Issue decision may not be changed in any way, any Rule rule to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing Nothing in this Rule rule shall be construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting the results resolution of voting on Issues. an Agoran decision.
\n
\n the results success of the resolution of an issue are Agoran decision is not challenged within seven days after one week from the time the Vote Collector vote collector announces them, it, then the announced results are result is the true results result of that issue, decision, even if they it would otherwise be in error.
\n'),(38698,2034,405577,406244,'Any proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change the validity of one or more of a voter\'s ballots on an Agoran decision whose voting period has begun but which has not yet been resolved shall be wholly without effect, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nOnce an Agoran decision has been resolved, no ballots on that decision may be validly submitted or retracted, and the outcome of the decision may not be changed in any way, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this rule shall be construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting the resolution of an Agoran decision.
\n
\nIf the success of theThe resolution of an Agoran decision is not challenged within one week from the time the vote collector announces it, then the announced result is the true result of that decision, even if it would otherwise be in error. self-ratifying.
\n'),(38699,2034,406244,496737,' proposal that, as all or part of its effect, that would otherwise change the validity of one or more of a voter\'s ballots any existing vote on an any specific unresolved Agoran decision whose voting period has begun but which has not yet been resolved shall be is wholly without effect, any rule rules to the contrary notwithstanding. notwithstanding. This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.
\n
\n resolved, no ballots votes on that decision may it CANNOT be validly submitted or retracted, and the its outcome of the decision may not CANNOT be changed in any way, any rule rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this rule shall be construed as preventing the correction of This does not prevent correcting errors in reporting the resolution of an Agoran decision. its resolution.
\n
\nThe resolution ofA public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n'),(38700,2035,405044,405251,'When a player becomes unready e begins to Turn Around And Around. If at any timeWhenever an Unready unready player is not Turning Around And Around unturned, e begins to Turn Around And Around. becomes turned.
\n'),(38701,2035,405251,405319,'Whenever an unreadyWhile a player is unturned, unready, e becomes turned. is ineligible to be Judge of any CFJ.
\n
\nWhile a player is not noisy, e is ineligible to become Judge of any CFJ.
\n'),(38702,2036,405065,405207,'(a) The publication of a Notice of Abandonment commences the Silent Treatment for the player identified in it.
\n
\n(b) The requirement to perform the actions described in this Rule is subject to the Notice of Abandonment remaining valid. If at any time during the Silent Treatment the Notice of Abandonment is invalid, then the Treatment is terminated, and the Registrar is relieved of all powers and responsibilities regarding it.
\n
\n(c) As soon as possible after the commencement of the Silent Treatment, the Registrar shall:
\n
\n(1) publically confirm whether the Notice of Abandonment was valid at the commencement of the Silent Treatment, and whether it remains valid;
\n
\n to the preferred email each listed e-mail address of the player, if e has one, a Notice of Intent to Deregister, identifying the player to be deregistered (the same as in the Notice of Abandonment), and announcing the Registrar\'s intent to deregister that player after one month has passed.
\n
\n to the preferred email each listed e-mail address of the player, if e has one, a Notice of Deregistration, identifying the player being deregistered (the same as in the Notice of Abandonment). A Notice of Deregistration is valid if and only if it is published by the Registrar, following the procedures described in this Rule.
\n
\n(e) Upon publication of a valid Notice of Deregistration, the following events occur in order:
\n
\n(1) if the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment; e ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;
\n
\n(2) the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is deregistered;
\n
\n(3) the Silent Treatment for that player concludes.
\n'),(38703,2036,405207,405521,'(a) The publication of a Notice of Abandonment commences the Silent Treatment for the player identified in it.
\n
\n the Notice of Abandonment is invalid, then the Treatment is terminated, and the Registrar is relieved of all powers and responsibilities regarding it.
\n
\n(c) As soon as possible after the commencement of the Silent Treatment, the Registrar shall:
\n
\n(1) publically publicly confirm whether the Notice of Abandonment was valid at the commencement of the Silent Treatment, and whether it remains valid;
\n
\n(2) publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail address of the player, a Notice of Intent to Deregister, identifying the player to be deregistered (the same as in the Notice of Abandonment), and announcing the Registrar\'s intent to deregister that player after one month has passed.
\n
\n deregistered (the same as (as in the Notice of Abandonment). A The only player so far to have returned to the game after becoming a zombie is Oerjan. The Notice of Deregistration is valid if and only if it is published by the Registrar, following the procedures described in this Rule.
\n
\n(e) Upon publication of a valid Notice of Deregistration, the following events occur in order:
\n
\n e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment; e ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;
\n
\n(2) the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is deregistered;
\n
\n(3) the Silent Treatment for that player concludes.
\n'),(38704,2036,405521,405599,'(a) The publication ofIf a Notice of Abandonment commences player (hereafter the Silent Treatment One) has been inactive continuously for the three months, then any player identified in it. may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying the silent one and alleging that e has abandoned the game.
\n
\n(b) The requirement to perform the actions described in this Rule is subject to theThe publication of a Notice of Abandonment remaining valid. If commences the Silent Treatment for the silent one. If at any time during the Silent Treatment silent treatment the of Abandonment silent one is invalid, not, or ceases to be, inactive, then the Treatment treatment is terminated, and the Registrar is relieved of all powers and responsibilities regarding it.
\n
\n(c) AsAs soon as possible after the commencement of the Silent Treatment, silent treatment, the Registrar shall: shall publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail address of the silent one, a Notice of Intent to Deregister, announcing the Registrar\'s intent to deregister the silent one after one month has passed.
\n
\n(1) publicly confirm whetherIf the silent treatement has not terminated a month after the publication of the Notice of Abandonment was valid at Intent to Deregister, then the commencement Registrar shall, as soon as possible, publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail address of the Silent Treatment, silent one, a Notice of Deregistration identifying the silent one. A Notice of Deregistration is valid if and whether only if it remains valid; is published by the Registrar, following the procedures described in this Rule.
\n
\n(2) publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail addressUpon publication of the player, a valid Notice of Intent to Deregister, identifying Deregistration, the player to be deregistered (the same as following events occur in the Notice of Abandonment), and announcing the Registrar\'s intent to deregister that player after one month has passed. order:
\n
\n(d) If the Notice of Abandonment remains valid a month after the publication of the Notice of Intent to Deregister, then the Registrar shall, as soon as possible, publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail address of the player, a Notice of Deregistration, identifying the player being deregistered (as in the Notice of Abandonment). The only player so far to have returned to the game after becoming a zombie is Oerjan. The Notice is valid(1) if and only if it is published by the Registrar, following silent one is the procedures described in this Rule. Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker;
\n
\n(e) Upon publication of a valid Notice of Deregistration,(2) the following events occur in order: silent one is deregistered;
\n
\n(1) if(3) the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is the Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker;
\n
\n(2) the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is deregistered;
\n
\n(3) the Silent Treatment silent treatment for that player concludes.
\n'),(38705,2039,405108,405627,'Other RulesNo player may be required to the contrary notwithstanding, the failure do anything e is not empowered to perform an action required by the Rules, where do, and the person required failure of a player to act do something e was not empowered to do so, shall never constitute the commission of a Crime crime or Infraction. infraction.
\n'),(38706,2040,405109,405248,'A switch is a set of states associated with a class of entities. Each switch shall have a default state, which if not otherwise specified shall be the first state mentioned in the rule defining the switch.
\n
\n as for each entity of the class the current state of the switch. switch for each entity of the class. If the recordkeepor is required to publish a report, that report shall include records of these switches. switches. The rules may require a different player to maintain and report these records.
\n
\nWhenever an entity is created in a class of entities associated with a switch, it shall be in the state of the switch specified by the order or provision creating it; if no state is specified, it shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\nWhenever an entity joins a class of entities associated with a switch, the entity shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\nA player who may flip a switch on an entity to some state may do so by announcement. In eir announcement, e must indicate the entity, switch, and new state. When a switch on an entity is flipped to some state, the entity shall come to be in that state and simultaneously cease to be in any other state of the switch.
\n
\nViscosity is a stuckA switch for switches with values is loose and unless the rules define it as stuck.
\n
\nAn executor of an entity may flip any of the loose switches on that entity, unless the rules otherwise prohibit doing so.
\n
\nThe stuck switches on an entity can be flipped only when the rules so indicate.
\n
\nWhenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n'),(38707,2040,405248,405425,'A switch is a set of states associated with a class of entities. Each switch shall have a default state, which if not otherwise specified shall be the first state mentioned in the rule defining the switch.
\n
\nThe recordkeepor for a class of entities shall also maintain records of any switches associated with that class, as well as the current state of the switch for each entity of the class. If the recordkeepor is required to publish a report, that report shall include records of these switches. The rules may require a different player to maintain and report these records.
\n
\nWhenever an entity is created in a class of entities associated with a switch, it shall be in the state of the switch specified by the order or provision creating it; if no state is specified, it shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\nWhenever an entity joins a class of entities associated with a switch, the entity shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\nAWhenever an instrument indicates that a switch on an entity is set or changed to some state, and the rules do not otherwise forbid it, the entity shall come to be in that state and simultaneously cease to be in any other state of the switch.
\n
\nA player who may flip a switch on an entity to some state other than the current state of the switch may do so by announcement. In In eir announcement, e must indicate the entity, switch, and new state. When a switch on an entity Upon this announcement, provided it is flipped to some state, valid, the entity shall come to be in that state and simultaneously cease switch is set to be in any other state of the switch. named state.
\n
\nA switch is loose unless the rules define it as stuck.
\n
\nAn executor of an entity may flip any of the loose switches on that entity, unless the rules otherwise prohibit doing so.
\n
\nThe stuck switches on an entity can be flipped only when the rules so indicate.
\n
\nWhenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\nWhenever a state ceases to be a state of a switch, all entities in the class that had previously been in that state shall be flipped to the default state of the switch.
\n'),(38708,2040,405425,405605,'A switch is a set of states associated with a class of entities. Each switch shall have a default state, which if not otherwise specified shall be the first state mentioned in the rule defining the switch.
\n
\nThe recordkeepor for a class of entities shall also maintain records of any switches associated with that class, as well as the current state of the switch for each entity of the class. If the recordkeepor is required to publish a report, that report shall include records of these switches. The rules may require a different player to maintain and report these records.
\n
\nWhenever an entity is created in a class of entities associated with a switch, it shall be in the state of the switch specified by the order or provision creating it; if no state is specified, it shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\nWhenever an entity joins a class of entities associated with a switch, the entity shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\nWhenever an instrument indicates that a switch on an entity is set or changed to some state, and the rules do not otherwise forbid it, the entity shall come to be in that state and simultaneously cease to be in any other state of the switch.
\n
\nA player who may flip a switch on an entity to some state other than the current state of the switch may do so by announcement. In eir announcement, e must indicate the entity, switch, and new state. Upon this announcement, provided it is valid, the switch is set to the named state.
\n
\nA switch is loose unless the rules define it as stuck.
\n
\nAn executor of an entity may flip any of the loose switches on that entity, unless the rules otherwise prohibit doing so.
\n
\nThe stuck switches on an entity can be flipped only when the rules so indicate.
\n
\nWhenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in the default state of the switch.
\n
\n be flipped to in the default state of the switch.
\n'),(38709,2041,405127,405197,'All Players are grouped into units known as Teams. No Player may belong to more than one Team at any time.
\n
\nEach Team shall have a Team Name by which it is known. A Player in a Team may change that Team\'s Team Name with the Support of two other Players in the same Team.
\n
\nA Team Score is at all times an integer. The Team Score of a Team is the total sum of all Points of all Players grouped into that Team.
\n'),(38710,2042,405128,405185,'A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches 400.
\n
\n then pay out 25 Stems to award each Player in team member the winning Team. Boon Team Ribbon.
\n
\nUpon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set to zero.
\n'),(38711,2042,405185,405190,'A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches 400.
\n
\n achieved. The In the announcement the Scorekeepor shall then award payout 25 Stems to each team member Player in the winning Team.
\n
\nLater in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;
\n
\n1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest Team Score.
\n
\n2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the Boon lowest Team Ribbon. Score is assigned as to distribute the players as evenly as possible among the Teams.
\n
\n3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.
\n
\nIf in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.
\n
\nUpon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set to zero.
\n'),(38712,2042,405190,405202,' reaches 400. reaches the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the announcement the Scorekeepor shall payout 25 Stems to each Player in the winning Team.
\n
\nLater in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;
\n
\n1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest Team Score.
\n
\n2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as evenly as possible among the Teams.
\n
\n3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.
\n
\nIf in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.
\n
\nUpon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set to zero.
\n'),(38713,2042,405202,405203,'A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\n shall payout 25 Stems award the Boon of Teamwork to each Player in the winning Team.
\n
\nLater in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;
\n
\n1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest Team Score.
\n
\n2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as evenly as possible among the Teams.
\n
\n3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.
\n
\nIf in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.
\n
\nUpon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set to zero.
\n'),(38714,2042,405203,405261,'A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the announcement the Scorekeepor shall award the Boon of Teamwork to each Player in the winning Team.
\n
\nLater in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;
\n
\n1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest Team Score.
\n
\n2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as evenly as possible among the Teams.
\n
\n3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.
\n
\nIf in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.
\n
\n Scores and all Teams\' Scores are set to zero.
\n'),(38715,2042,405261,405275,'A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the announcement the Scorekeepor shall award the Boon of Teamwork to each Player in the winning Team.
\n
\nLater in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;
\n
\n1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest Team Score.
\n
\n2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as evenly as possible among the Teams.
\n
\n3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.
\n
\nIf in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor may rename any Team in this announcement, if e chooses to do so. That Team shall be known by its new name henceforth.
\n
\nUpon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores and all Teams\' Scores are set to zero.
\n'),(38716,2042,405275,405342,'A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the announcement the Scorekeepor shall award the Boon of Teamwork to each Player in the winning Team.
\n
\nLater in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;
\n
\n1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest Team Score.
\n
\n2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as evenly as possible among the Teams.
\n
\n3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.
\n
\nIf in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor may rename any Team in this announcement, if e chooses to do so. That Team shall be known by its new name henceforth.
\n
\nUpon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores and all Teams\' Scores are set to zero.
\n'),(38717,2044,405134,405422,'The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.
\n
\nThe Degree of Bachelor of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 500 words. A Candidate who already holds an BN Degree receives a credit of 250 words towards the Thesis requirement for any higher Degree.
\n
\n narrative covering significant and analysis of past events which have occurred in Agora within the eight weeks prior to the publication of the Thesis. specific significance to Agora.
\n
\nThe Degree of Master of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 750 words.
\n
\nThe Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy requires a Thesis of at least 1000 words, and that the candidate has also published an additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general.
\n'),(38718,2045,405138,405571,'1) The Default Adoption Index ofWhen a Proposal is the maximum of:
\n
\na) 1; and
\n
\nb) any minimum values required for that Proposal by the Rules.
\n
\n2) The Proposer of decision on whether to adopt a Proposal may, at the time when e submits the Proposal proposal or at any time while it referendum is in the Pool, request initiated, it shall be assigned an Adoption Index adoption index, which shall be one unless otherwise specified. Once the voting period for that Proposal by announcement, specifying the requested value.
\n
\n3) When a Proposal is distributed, its Adoption Index is set to decision has begun, the maximum of:
\n
\na) its Default Adoption Index; and
\n
\nb) any values requested by its Proposer as permitted in 2).
\n
\n
\n4) This is the only mechanism for setting or changing the Adoption Index adoption index of a Proposal. This Rule takes precedence over Rules that would allow other mechanisms for setting or changing decision can only be changed by the Adoption Index of a Proposal. Speaker\'s veto.
\n'),(38719,2047,405170,405225,'Kudos (singular Kudo) are an integral measure of a Player\'s Kismet and noteworthiness within the game of Agora.
\n
\nThe Herald is the recordkeepor of Kudos. The kudos of a Player may only be changed as specified by the rules or by an instrument of Power 2 or greater.
\n
\nAgora, as a whole, also has a defined number of Kudos. No other non-Player entity has a defined number of Kudos.
\n
\nIf an entity has a defined number of Kudos, but the number has not been set by the Rules, then the entity has 1 Kudo.
\n'),(38720,2047,405225,405334,'Kudos (singular Kudo) are an integral measure of a Player\'s Kismet and noteworthiness within the game of Agora.
\n
\nThe Herald is the recordkeepor of Kudos. The kudos of a Player may only be changed as specified by the rules or by an instrument of Power 2 or greater.
\n
\nAgora, as a whole, also has a defined number of Kudos. No other non-Player entity has a defined number of Kudos.
\n
\nIf an entity has a defined number of Kudos, but the number has not been set by the Rules, then the entity has 1 Kudo.
\n'),(38721,2049,405172,405453,' Title is has Ephemeral significance if the rules state that the Patent Title is ephemeral. Karma is a stuck switch for ephemeral patent titles with states Boon and Albatross. Defining Defining something to be a \'boon\' or an \'albatross\' is equivalent to defining it to be an ephemeral Patent Title with its Karma set as defined. defined, and the Karma of a title defined in this way is said to be Static. A Static Karma switch may never be changed except by modifying its definition. A Karma switch that is not Static is said to be Dynamic.
\n
\nPlayers may be permitted or required by the Rules to award or revoke Boons or Albatrosses. If so, these awards are performed by public announcement by the specified Players.
\n
\nA Player may hold multiple instances of a given type of ephemeral Patent title; if so, The Herald need only note the number of instances of these Patent Titles that each player holds.
\n'),(38722,2049,405453,405648,'A Patent Title has Ephemeral significance if the rules state that the Patent Title is ephemeral. Karma is a stuck switch for ephemeral patent titles with states Boon and Albatross. Defining something toPlayers may be a \'boon\' permitted or an \'albatross\' is equivalent required by the Rules to defining it grant Boons or Albatrosses to be an ephemeral Patent Title with its Karma set as defined, and other Players. If so, these awards are performed by public announcement. The Herald shall note the Karma granting of a title defined in this way is said to be Static. A Static Karma switch may never be changed except by modifying its definition. A Karma switch that is not Static is said to be Dynamic. all such awards.
\n
\nPlayers may be permitted or required by the Rules to award or revoke Boons or Albatrosses. If so, these awards are performed by public announcement by the specified Players.
\n
\nAA Player may hold multiple instances of who gains a Boon is considered to have drawn a given type of ephemeral Patent title; if so, The Herald need only note the number of instances of these Patent Titles free card for that each player holds. boon. A Player who gains an Albatross loses a pending draw.
\n'),(38723,2049,405648,405671,'Players may be permitted or required by the Rules to grant Boons or Albatrosses to other Players. If so, these awards are performed by public announcement. The Herald shall note the granting of all such awards.
\n
\nA Player who gains a Boon is considered to have drawn a free card for that boon. A Player who gains an Albatross loses a pending draw.
\n'),(38724,2050,405173,405405,''),(38725,2051,405180,405336,'The Herald\'s Budget shall consist of a positive integer between 5 and 25, known as the Tabla Rasa.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the beginning of each quarter, the Herald shall announce the Turning of a New Parchment.
\n
\nThe effect of such an announcement is to: (A) set each Player\'s kudos equal to: (i) the Tabla Rasa; (ii) plus the number of boons e holds; (iii) minus the number of albatrosses e holds; (iv) minus one for every 3 Blots e has.
\n
\n(B) set Agora\'s kudos equal to the Tabla Rasa times the current number of Players;
\n
\n(C) revoke all ephemeral Patent Titles.
\n'),(38726,2051,405336,405456,'The Herald\'s Budget shall consist of a positive integer between 5 and 25, known as the Tabla Rasa.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the beginning of each quarter, the Herald shall announce the Turning of a New Parchment.
\n
\nThe effect of such an announcement is to: (A) set each Player\'s kudos equal to: (i) the Tabla Rasa; (ii) plus the number of boons e holds; (iii) minus the number of albatrosses e holds; (iv) minus one for every 3 Blots e has.
\n
\n(B) revoke all ephemeral Patent Titles.
\n
\n(C) set each Dynamic Karma switch to its original state.
\n'),(38727,2052,405163,405247,'(a) Associated with every Player is a non-negative integral number known as that Player\'s Voting Potential. At the beginning of each new month, every Player\'s Voting Potential is set to zero.
\n
\n announcement, set increase their Voting Potential to any by a positive integer integral amount, N. The The Fee associated with this action is the Oligarchy Charge Requirement multiplied by N.
\n
\n(c) The Assessor is responsible for tracking these announcements, and recording Players\' Voting Potentials.
\n'),(38728,2052,405247,405287,'(a) Associated with every Player is a non-negative integral number known as that Player\'s Voting Potential. At the beginning of each new month, every Player\'s Voting Potential is set to zero.
\n
\n the Oligarchy Political Charge Requirement multiplied by N.
\n
\n(c) The Assessor is responsible for tracking these announcements, and recording Players\' Voting Potentials.
\n'),(38729,2052,405287,405358,' is set to zero. divided by two and rounded down.
\n
\n(b) At any time, a Player may, by announcement, increase their Voting Potential by a positive integral amount, N. The Fee associated with this action is the Political Charge multiplied by N.
\n
\n(c) The Assessor is responsible for tracking these announcements, and recording Players\' Voting Potentials.
\n
\n(d) the Political Charge is a positive integer that is initially 4, and may be changed only as defined by instruments of a power of 2 or greater. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if the current value of the Political Charge cannot be determined by reasonable effort, it shall be considered to be reset to 4. The Assessor is responsible for tracking the current Political Charge.
\n'),(38730,2053,405198,405272,'A Team Score is at all times an integer. The Team Score of a Team is the total sum of all Points of all Players grouped into that Team, plus the Team\'s Team Points.
\n
\nA Team who has not been Awarded or Penalized since the last Team Win has zero Team Points.
\n
\nThe Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain Team to be Awarded or Penalised Team Points. If said event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the affected Team Points.
\n
\nSuch a notification must meet the following requirements, else it is ineffective: -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event -- It must unambiguously describe the event -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific event
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is invalid and points do not change.
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged later, then the team may be penalized/awarded a number of points equal to the original award/penalty.
\n'),(38731,2053,405272,405341,'A Team Score is at all times an integer. The Team Score of a Team is the total sum of all Points of all Players grouped into that Team, plus the Team\'s Team Points.
\n
\n last Team Win Score Reset has zero Team Points.
\n
\nThe Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain Team to be Awarded or Penalised Team Points. If said event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the affected Team Points.
\n
\nSuch a notification must meet the following requirements, else it is ineffective: -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event -- It must unambiguously describe the event -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific event
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is invalid and points do not change.
\n
\nIf the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged later, then the team may be penalized/awarded a number of points equal to the original award/penalty.
\n'),(38732,2055,405200,405269,'The Scorekeepor\'s Budget shall contain the following:
\n
\n(a)a) The Team Points Goal, which a positive integer. b) The Player Points Limit, a positive integer. c) Points Per Player, a positive integer. d) One or more scoring events, each with the following information: i) Whether it is an award or a penalty. ii) The amount of the award/penalty, a positive integer; (b) integer. iii) The PLIMIT and PPP, conditions required for the event to occur. iv) A description of which are both positive integers; and (c) Various Scoring Events; player/team receives the award/penalty.
\n
\nEach Scoring Event must contain the following information:
\n
\n(1) Whether it is an Award or a Penalty; (2) The amount of scoring event in the Award or Penalty, which is a positive integer; (3) The conditions required for Scorekeepor\'s Budget may cause the Event to occur; (4) A description of which Player or Team is specified player/team to receive the Award or Penalty.
\n
\nIf the conditions for a Scoring Event are met then the given Player or Team may be Awarded or Penalized an amount awarded/penalized the specified number of Points points, as in that Event\'s description in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget. defined by other rules.
\n'),(38733,2055,405269,405296,'The Scorekeepor\'s Budget shall contain the following:
\n
\n The Player Points Limit, Champion\'s Grant, a positive integer. c) Points Per Player, a positive integer. d) One or more scoring events, each with the following information: i) Whether it is an award or a penalty. ii) The amount of the award/penalty, a positive integer. iii) The conditions required for the event to occur. iv) A description of which player/team receives the award/penalty.
\n
\nEach scoring event in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget may cause the specified player/team to be awarded/penalized the specified number of points, as defined by other rules.
\n'),(38734,2055,405296,405298,'The Scorekeepor\'s Budget shall contain the following:
\n
\na) The Team Points Goal, a positive integer. b) The Champion\'s Grant, a positive integer. c) One or more scoring events, each with the following information: i) Whether it is an award or a penalty. ii) The amount of the award/penalty, a positive integer. iii) The conditions required for the event to occur. iv) A description of which player/team receives the award/penalty.
\n
\nEach scoring event in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget may cause the specified player/team to be awarded/penalized the specified number of points, as defined by other rules.
\n
\nIf no Team Score is greater than half the Team Points Goal, then: (a) Any Player may amend the Scorekeepor\'s budget by adding a valid scoring event, provided e does so both without Objection from the Scorekeepor and with Support from a member of a different team;
\n
\n(b) The Scorekeepor may amend the budget by adding, removing, or changing scoring events, provided e does so both without 3 Objections and with Support from a member of a different team.
\n'),(38735,2057,405209,405222,' vote or declare emself present commits the Class 1 Infraction of Apathy, to be reported by the vote collector.
\n'),(38736,2057,405222,405243,''),(38737,2058,405256,405286,'When the Rules direct the GWotO to remove a Player from the Oligarchy, the GWotO shall publicly announce:
\n
\n(i) the Oligarch to be removed; (ii) the reason for the removal; and (iii) the Rule that authorizes that reason.
\n
\n named Player ceases Player\'s class is flipped to be an Oligarch Plebeian as of the GWotO\'s announcement.
\n
\nThe GWotO\'s announcement is to be made as soon as possible after the governing event happens, unless the governing Rule specifies a different time period.
\n'),(38738,2059,405264,405291,'Advertising is a stuck proposal switch with values none, positive, negative.
\n
\n flip a proposal\'s the advertising switch of any proposal in the pool from none to another value, or from another value to none.
\n'),(38739,2059,405291,405356,'AdvertisingThe following Element is a stuck proposal switch with values none, positive, negative. defined for cards:
\n
\nA player may pay 2 kudosGrafty: If a card is Grafty, then it is Budgeted, with its initial quota set equal to flip one plus the advertising switch number of any proposal in Players who voted FOR the Proposal that first defined that class of card as Grafty. When the pool from none Deckmastor initially creates cards to another value, or from another value fulfil this quota, e shall, Rules to none. the contrary nonwithstanding, first destroy all existing copies of the card, then create one copy in the possession of the Deck, and finally create one copy in the possession of each Player who voted FOR said proposal.
\n'),(38740,2059,405356,405608,'The following Element is defined for cards:
\n
\n contrary nonwithstanding, notwithstanding, first destroy all existing copies of the card, then create one copy in the possession of the Deck, and finally create one copy in the possession of each Player who voted FOR said proposal.
\n'),(38741,2061,405268,405276,''),(38742,2067,405301,405351,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Distrib-u-Matic Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.
\n
\n* Caption: Absolv-o-Matic Elements: Budgeted, Limited Exploit: Expunge one Blot from any one entity.
\n
\n* Caption: Debate-o-Matic Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that Proposal to be in the named Chamber.
\n
\n* Caption: Boost-o-Matic Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Increase any one Team\'s Team Points by 5. Exploit: Increase any one Team\'s Team Points by 10 for a Fee of 1 Kudo.
\n'),(38743,2067,405351,405369,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Distrib-u-Matic Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.
\n
\n* Caption: Absolv-o-Matic Elements: Budgeted, Limited Exploit: Expunge one Blot from any one entity.
\n
\n Elements: Budgeted Budgeted, Powered Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that Proposal to be in the named Chamber.
\n'),(38744,2067,405369,405449,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Distrib-u-Matic Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.
\n
\n Elements: Budgeted, Limited Budgeted Exploit: Expunge one Blot If you are immaculate, you may expunge N blots from any an entity for a fee of N-1. Otherwise, you may expunge one entity. blot from an entity for no fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Debate-o-Matic Elements: Budgeted, Powered Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that Proposal to be in the named Chamber.
\n
\n* Caption: Two for One Elements: Budgeted Exploit: For a fee of one Kudo make 2 undistributable proposals, provided that each has a Distribution Cost of 1, distributable.
\n'),(38745,2067,405449,405363,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Distrib-u-Matic Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.
\n
\n Elements: Budgeted Budgeted, Limited Exploit: If you are immaculate, you may expunge N blots from an entity for a fee of N-1. Otherwise, you may expunge Expunge one blot Blot from an entity for no fee. any one entity.
\n
\n Elements: Budgeted, Powered Budgeted Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that Proposal to be in the named Chamber.
\n
\n* Caption: Two for One Elements: Budgeted Exploit: For a fee of one Kudo make 2 undistributable proposals, provided that each has a Distribution Cost of 1, distributable. Chamber.
\n'),(38746,2068,405302,405347,'The Deckmastor is an office which acts as the recordkeepor for Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of all Cards in existence and what entity possesses each Card.
\n
\n Hand Size and the Minimum Hand Size, each of which is a positive integer between 3 2 and 10. 10, with the Minimum being less than the Maximum. In the absence of a budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall be 5. 5 and the Minimum Hand Size shall be 2.
\n
\nThe Deck is a Gambler. The Deckmastor shall be the sole Executor of The Deck, but may take no action on behalf of The Deck except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The Deck may not transfer Cards to any other entity except as explicitly required by the Rules.
\n
\nOnly the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards, and e may do if and only if the Rules require it by announcing the Card being created or destroyed and the entity who either possesses it now or possessed it at the time of destruction as appropriate.
\n'),(38747,2068,405347,405446,'The Deckmastor is an office which acts as the recordkeepor for Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of all Cards in existence and what entity possesses each Card.
\n
\nThe Deckmastor shall have a budget containing the Maximum Hand Size and the Minimum Hand Size, each of which is a positive integer between 2 and 10, with the Minimum being less than the Maximum. In the absence of a budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall be 5 and the Minimum Hand Size shall be 2.
\n
\n Deck is a Gambler. and the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor shall be the sole Executor of The Deck, both entities, but may take no action on behalf of The Deck them except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The The Deck and Discard Pile may not transfer Cards cards to any other entity except as explicitly required by the Rules.
\n
\nOnly the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards, and e may do if and only if the Rules require it by announcing the Card being created or destroyed and the entity who either possesses it now or possessed it at the time of destruction as appropriate.
\n'),(38748,2068,405446,405487,'The Deckmastor is an office which acts as the recordkeepor for Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of all Cards in existence and what entity possesses each Card.
\n
\nThe Deckmastor shall have a budget containing the Maximum Hand Size and the Minimum Hand Size, each of which is a positive integer between 2 and 10, with the Minimum being less than the Maximum. In the absence of a budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall be 5 and the Minimum Hand Size shall be 2.
\n
\nThe Deck and the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor shall be the sole Executor of both entities, but may take no action on behalf of them except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The Deck and Discard Pile may not transfer cards to any other entity except as explicitly required by the Rules.
\n
\n destroy Cards, Cards not in eir Trial Run, and e may do if and only if the Rules require it by announcing the Card being created or destroyed and the entity who either possesses it now or possessed it at the time of destruction as appropriate.
\n'),(38749,2068,405487,405545,' office which whose responsibilities include shuffling, dealing, and other random actions concerning cards, and who acts as the recordkeepor for Cards. The The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of all Cards in existence existence, recent card actions, and what entity possesses each Card.
\n
\nThe Deck and the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor shall have a budget containing the Maximum Hand Size and be the Minimum Hand Size, each sole Executor of which is a positive integer between 2 and 10, with the Minimum being less than the Maximum. In the absence both entities, but may take no action on behalf of a budget, them except as explicitly permitted by the Maximum Hand Size shall be 5 Rules. The Deck and Discard Pile may not transfer cards to any other entity except as explicitly required by the Minimum Hand Size shall be 2. Rules.
\n
\nThe Deck andOnly the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor shall be the sole Executor of both entities, but may take no action on behalf of them except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The Deck create or destroy Cards, and Discard Pile e only may not transfer cards to any other entity except as explicitly required do so when the rules require it. The Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate the Rules. entity who now possesses it or previously possessed it.
\n
\nOnlyIf at any time fewer Copies of a defined Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor may shall create or destroy Cards not a Copy of that Card in eir Trial Run, and e may do if and only if the Rules require it by announcing possession of The Deck, unless otherwise specified. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card being created or destroyed and the entity who either possesses it now or possessed it at in the time possession of destruction as appropriate. The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.
\n'),(38750,2068,405545,405630,' an office whose responsibilities include office; its holder is responsible for fair play, shuffling, dealing, and other random actions concerning cards, dealing, and who acts as is the recordkeepor for Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of all Cards in existence, recent card actions, and what entity possesses each Card. cards.
\n
\nThe Deck and the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor Deckmastor\'s weekly report shall be the sole Executor of both entities, but may take no action on behalf contain a record of them except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The Deck and Discard Pile may not transfer all cards to any other entity except as explicitly required by the Rules.
\n
\nOnly the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards, in existence, recent card actions, and e only may do so when the rules require it. what entity holds each card. The Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate the entity who now possesses it need not record or previously possessed it.
\n
\nIf at any time fewer Copies report transfers of a defined Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless otherwise specified. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case cards to the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy. table.
\n'),(38751,2068,405630,405663,' for cards. cards and chips.
\n
\n cards and chips in existence, recent card and chip actions, and what entity holds each card. card and chip. The Deckmastor need not record or report transfers of cards to the table.
\n'),(38752,2069,405303,405360,'I. Possession
\n
\nCards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers. If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The Deck.
\n
\nThe Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each Pending Draw for that Gambler.
\n
\nII. Definitions
\n
\nThe Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy of that Class of Card.
\n
\n(a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.
\n
\n(b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.
\n
\n(c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the Element of that name shall behave according to the description associated with that Element. An Element not defined in the Rules has no effect.
\n
\n(d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in that Exploit. Any reference to "you," "your" or a similar pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is automatically transferred to The Deck immediately after being Played.
\n
\nIII. Actions
\n
\nNo action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other action. No such action may be performed more than once simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one such action in such a way that the order of said actions is unclear, all such actions fail.
\n
\n(a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers take place at the time they are announced.
\n
\nDiscarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to The Deck.
\n
\n(b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.
\n
\nWhen a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be required to randomly select one Card from among those currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet made.
\n
\n Hand Size. Size plus the number of Offices e holds. For the purposes of this Rule, the Speakership is considered an office.
\n'),(38753,2069,405360,405371,'I. Possession
\n
\nCards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers. If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The Deck.
\n
\nThe Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each Pending Draw for that Gambler.
\n
\nII. Definitions
\n
\nThe Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy of that Class of Card.
\n
\n(a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.
\n
\n(b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.
\n
\n(c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the Element of that name shall behave according to the description associated with that Element. An Element not defined in the Rules has no effect.
\n
\n(d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in that Exploit. Any reference to "you," "your" or a similar pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is automatically transferred to The Deck immediately after being Played.
\n
\nIII. Actions
\n
\nNo action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other action. No such action may be performed more than once simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one such action in such a way that the order of said actions is unclear, all such actions fail.
\n
\n(a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers take place at the time they are announced.
\n
\nDiscarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to The Deck.
\n
\n(b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.
\n
\nWhen a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be required to randomly select one Card from among those currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet made.
\n
\nA Gambler may Draw from The Deck for a Fee equal to the number of times that Gambler has previously Drawn from the Deck during the current month so long as the Gambler\'s Hand Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number of Offices e holds. For the purposes of this Rule, the Speakership is considered an office.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n'),(38754,2069,405371,405423,'I. Possession
\n
\nCards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers. If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The Deck.
\n
\nThe Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each Pending Draw for that Gambler.
\n
\nII. Definitions
\n
\nThe Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy of that Class of Card.
\n
\n(a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.
\n
\n(b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.
\n
\n(c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the Element of that name shall behave according to the description associated with that Element. An Element not defined in the Rules has no effect.
\n
\n(d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in that Exploit. Any reference to "you," "your" or a similar pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is automatically transferred to The Deck immediately after being Played.
\n
\nIII. Actions
\n
\nNo action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other action. No such action may be performed more than once simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one such action in such a way that the order of said actions is unclear, all such actions fail.
\n
\n(a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers take place at the time they are announced.
\n
\nDiscarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to The Deck.
\n
\n(b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.
\n
\nWhen a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be required to randomly select one Card from among those currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet made.
\n
\n Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is Speaker, may Draw draw a card from The Deck Deck. The fee for this action is a Fee number of Kudos equal to the number of times that Gambler has previously Drawn from the Deck during the current month so long as the Gambler\'s Hand Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number of Offices e holds. For the purposes of has previously drawn a card in this Rule, the Speakership is considered an office. manner.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n'),(38755,2069,405423,405447,'I. Possession
\n
\nCards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers. If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The Deck.
\n
\nThe Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each Pending Draw for that Gambler.
\n
\nII. Definitions
\n
\nThe Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy of that Class of Card.
\n
\n(a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.
\n
\n(b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.
\n
\n(c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the Element of that name shall behave according to the description associated with that Element. An Element not defined in the Rules has no effect.
\n
\n to The Deck the Discard Pile immediately after being Played.
\n
\nIII. Actions
\n
\nNo action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other action. No such action may be performed more than once simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one such action in such a way that the order of said actions is unclear, all such actions fail.
\n
\n(a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers take place at the time they are announced.
\n
\nDiscardingIf a Gambler transfers a card to the Deck, it is instead transferred to the discard pile, unless the transfer is made as part of the Deckmastor\'s required duties. Discarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to The Deck. the Discard Pile.
\n
\n(b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.
\n
\n yet made. made. If, at any time, the number of pending draws for all gamblers is greater than the number of cards in the Deck, then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of the cards in the Discard Pile to the Deck before dealing any cards. This transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is performed as a single action.
\n
\nA Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times during the current month e has previously drawn a card in this manner.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n'),(38756,2069,405447,405488,'I. Possession
\n
\nCards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers. If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The Deck.
\n
\nThe Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each Pending Draw for that Gambler.
\n
\nII. Definitions
\n
\nThe Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy of that Class of Card.
\n
\n(a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.
\n
\n(b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.
\n
\n(c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the Element of that name shall behave according to the description associated with that Element. An Element not defined in the Rules has no effect.
\n
\n e clearly indicates the card whose Exploit e is performing and e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in that Exploit. Any reference to "you," "your" or a similar pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is automatically transferred to the Discard Pile immediately after being Played.
\n
\nIII. Actions
\n
\nNo action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other action. No such action may be performed more than once simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one such action in such a way that the order of said actions is unclear, all such actions fail.
\n
\n(a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers take place at the time they are announced.
\n
\nIf a Gambler transfers a card to the Deck, it is instead transferred to the discard pile, unless the transfer is made as part of the Deckmastor\'s required duties. Discarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to the Discard Pile.
\n
\n(b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.
\n
\n made. If, at any time, Whenever a player makes a true announcement that the number of pending draws for all gamblers is greater than the number of cards in the Deck, or that there are no cards in the Deck, then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of the cards in the Discard Pile to the Deck before dealing any cards. This transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is performed as a single action.
\n
\nA Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times during the current month e has previously drawn a card in this manner.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n'),(38757,2069,405488,405615,'I. Possession
\n
\nCards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers. If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The Deck.
\n
\nThe Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each Pending Draw for that Gambler.
\n
\nII. Definitions
\n
\nThe Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy of that Class of Card.
\n
\n(a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.
\n
\n(b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.
\n
\n(c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the Element of that name shall behave according to the description associated with that Element. An Element not defined in the Rules has no effect.
\n
\n(d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e clearly indicates the card whose Exploit e is performing and e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in that Exploit. Any reference to "you," "your" or a similar pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is automatically transferred to the Discard Pile immediately after being Played.
\n
\nIII. Actions
\n
\nNo action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other action. No such action may be performed more than once simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one such action in such a way that the order of said actions is unclear, all such actions fail.
\n
\n(a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers take place at the time they are announced.
\n
\n with transfering transferring said Card to the Discard Pile.
\n
\n(b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.
\n
\nWhen a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be required to randomly select one Card from among those currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet made. Whenever a player makes a true announcement that the number of pending draws for all gamblers is greater than the number of cards in the Deck, or that there are no cards in the Deck, then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of the cards in the Discard Pile to the Deck before dealing any cards. This transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is performed as a single action.
\n
\nA Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times during the current month e has previously drawn a card in this manner.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n'),(38758,2069,405615,405632,'I. Possession(a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.
\n
\nCards(b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers. If at any time hold cards. If a Card card is not possessed held by a Gambler, it immediately and automatically returns nongambler, the Deckmastor shall transfer that card to the possession of The Deck. Deck as soon as possible.
\n
\nThe Gambler that possesses a CardA gambler\'s hand is that Card\'s Holder and Holds that Card. All Cards possessed the collection of cards held by a particular Gambler are collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s Hand Size gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the number size of Cards in eir Hand this collection, plus one for each Pending Draw pending draw for that Gambler. gambler.
\n
\nII. Actions(c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder. Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.
\n
\nNo action involving Cards mayWhenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be simultaneous with any other action. No such action may created. The copy must be performed more than once simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one such action created in such a way that the order of said actions is unclear, all such actions fail. deck\'s hand unless otherwise specified.
\n
\n(a) Unless restricted from doing so byWhenever the rules, any Gambler possessing number of existing copies of a Card may transfer card exceeds the quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that Card to any other Gambler card, a copy held by announcing which Card is to the deck must be transferred destroyed, and if the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers take place at deck does not, then a random copy of the time they are announced. card must be destroyed.
\n
\nIf a Gambler transfers(d) If a card to the Deck, it is instead would be transferred to the discard pile, unless deck or the table, and the transfer is made not performed automatically, as part of the Deckmastor\'s required duties. Discarding duties, or as the result of a Card card play, it is synonymous with transferring said Card to the Discard Pile. discarded instead.
\n
\n(b) DrawingWhen a Card and Drawing card is otherwise transferred from The Deck are synonymous. one gambler to another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the card.
\n
\nWhenDiscarding a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be required to randomly select one Card from among those currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that Gambler card is said synonymous with transferring it to have one Pending Draw for each such transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet made. Whenever discard pile. Dealing a player makes card to a true announcement that the number of pending draws for all gamblers gambler is greater than the number of cards in the Deck, or that there are no cards in the Deck, then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of synonymous with selecting a random card from the cards in deck and transferring it from the Discard Pile deck to the Deck before dealing any cards. This transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is performed as a single action. that gambler.
\n
\nA Gambler gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.
\n
\n(e) A nonsite gambler whose Hand Size hand size is smaller than the maximum Hand Size, hand size, plus the number of Offices offices e holds, plus one if e is Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this action is a number of Kudos fee equal to the number of times during the current month e has previously drawn a card in this manner. manner.
\n
\n(f) When a gambler draws a card, e gains a pending draw. As soon as possible afterward, the Deckmastor shall deal a card to that gambler. When e does so, the draw is no longer pending.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player correctly announces that the sum of the number of pending draws for each gambler is greater than the number of cards in the deck, or that there are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to the deck.
\n'),(38759,2069,405632,405644,'(a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.
\n
\n(b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.
\n
\n each free pending draw for that gambler.
\n
\n(c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder. Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.
\n
\nWhenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless otherwise specified.
\n
\nWhenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card, a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.
\n
\n(d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is discarded instead.
\n
\nWhen a card is otherwise transferred from one gambler to another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the card.
\n
\nDiscarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring it from the deck to that gambler.
\n
\nA gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.
\n
\n(e) A nonsite gambler whose hand size is smaller than the maximum hand size, plus the number of offices e holds, may draw a card for a fee equal to the number of times during the current month e has previously drawn a card in this manner.
\n
\n(f) When a gambler draws a card, e gains a pending draw. As soon as possible afterward, the Deckmastor shall deal a card to that gambler. When e does so, the draw is no longer pending.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player correctly announces that the sum of the number of pending draws for each gambler is greater than the number of cards in the deck, or that there are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to the deck.
\n'),(38760,2069,405644,405657,'(a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.
\n
\n(b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.
\n
\n this collection, plus one for each free pending draw for that gambler. collection.
\n
\n(c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder. Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.
\n
\nWhenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless otherwise specified.
\n
\nWhenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card, a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.
\n
\n(d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is discarded instead.
\n
\nWhen a card is otherwise transferred from one gambler to another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the card.
\n
\nDiscarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring it from the deck to that gambler.
\n
\nA gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player correctly announces that the sum of the number of pending draws for each gambler is greater than the number of cards in the deck, or that there are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to the deck.
\n'),(38761,2069,405657,405664,'(a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.
\n
\n(b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.
\n
\nA gambler\'s hand is the collection of cards held by that gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the size of this collection.
\n
\n(c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder. Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.
\n
\nWhenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless otherwise specified.
\n
\nWhenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card, a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.
\n
\n(d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is discarded instead.
\n
\nWhen a card is otherwise transferred from one gambler to another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the card.
\n
\nDiscarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring it from the deck to that gambler.
\n
\nA gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\n that the sum of the number of pending draws for each gambler is greater than the number of cards in the deck, or that there are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to the deck.
\n'),(38762,2069,405664,405678,'(a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.
\n
\n(b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.
\n
\nA gambler\'s hand is the collection of cards held by that gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the size of this collection.
\n
\n(c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder. Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.
\n
\nWhenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless otherwise specified.
\n
\nWhenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card, a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.
\n
\n(d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is discarded instead.
\n
\n card or chip is otherwise transferred from one gambler to another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card it and the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the card. it.
\n
\nDiscarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring it from the deck to that gambler.
\n
\nA gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly change the probability of selecting that card, that deal shall be allowed to stand.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player correctly announces that there are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to the deck.
\n'),(38763,2070,405304,405350,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.
\n
\n* Handed , where X is a non-negative integer: When calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.
\n
\n* Restricted , where X is a type of entity: Only entities considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card.
\n
\n* Limited , where X is a type of entity and Y is a positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay a Fee of Y.
\n
\n* Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being transferred to The Deck.
\n
\n* Bleed , where X is a non-negative integer: At the beginning of each week, the Holder of this card loses X Points.
\n'),(38764,2070,405350,405362,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.
\n
\n* Handed , where X is a non-negative integer: When calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.
\n
\n* Restricted , where X is a type of entity: Only entities considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card.
\n
\n* Limited , where X is a type of entity and Y is a positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay a Fee of Y.
\n
\n* Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being transferred to The Deck.
\n
\n* Delayed: You may not play this card if you have played a copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.
\n'),(38765,2070,405362,405368,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.
\n
\n* Handed , where X is a non-negative integer: When calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.
\n
\n* Restricted , where X is a type of entity: Only entities considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card.
\n
\n* Limited , where X is a type of entity and Y is a positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay a Fee of Y.
\n
\n* Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being transferred to The Deck.
\n
\n* Delayed: You may not play this card if you have played a copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.
\n
\n* Powered , where X is a positive integer: This Card has a Power of X. To Activate any Exploit possessed by this Card, a Fee of X - 1 must be paid in addition to any other Fees required to Activate that Exploit, unless that Exploit explicitly specifies otherwise.
\n'),(38766,2070,405368,405448,'The following Elements for Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.
\n
\n* Handed , where X is a non-negative integer: When calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.
\n
\n* Restricted , where X is a type of entity: Only entities considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card.
\n
\n* Limited , where X is a type of entity and Y is a positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay a Fee of Y.
\n
\n* Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being transferred to The Deck.
\n
\n* Delayed: You may not play this card if you have played a copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.
\n
\n* Asleep: No one may play a copy of this card if anyone has played a copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.
\n
\n* Powered , where X is a positive integer: This Card has a Power of X. To Activate any Exploit possessed by this Card, a Fee of X - 1 must be paid in addition to any other Fees required to Activate that Exploit, unless that Exploit explicitly specifies otherwise.
\n'),(38767,2071,405305,405337,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: ZOT! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.
\n
\n* Caption: Albatross Flies Away Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.
\n
\n* Caption: Point Mine Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the current week, you may gain 1 Point.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Elements: Budgeted, Persistent Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a luckier Draw.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Fusion Quota: 1 Elements: Bleed Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20 Points.
\n
\n* Caption: Player Stasis Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for the next 88 hours.
\n
\n Potato" with within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.
\n
\n* Caption: It\'s a Surprise! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Discard and Draw Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as one of the discarded cards.
\n'),(38768,2071,405337,405338,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: ZOT! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.
\n
\n* Caption: Albatross Flies Away Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.
\n
\n* Caption: Point Mine Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the current week, you may gain 1 Point.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Elements: Budgeted, Persistent Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a luckier Draw.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Fusion Quota: 1 Elements: Bleed Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20 Points.
\n
\n* Caption: Player Stasis Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for the next 88 hours.
\n
\n* Caption: Hot Potato Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity does not post to a Public Forum the phrase "Hot Potato" within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.
\n
\n* Caption: It\'s a Surprise! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Discard and Draw Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as one of the discarded cards.
\n
\n* Caption: Rebel Rabble Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n'),(38769,2071,405338,405352,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: ZOT! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.
\n
\n* Caption: Albatross Flies Away Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.
\n
\n* Caption: Point Mine Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the current week, you may gain 1 Point.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Elements: Budgeted, Persistent Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a luckier Draw.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Fusion Quota: 1 Elements: Bleed Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20 Points.
\n
\n* Caption: Player Stasis Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for the next 88 hours.
\n
\n* Caption: Hot Potato Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity does not post to a Public Forum the phrase "Hot Potato" within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.
\n
\n* Caption: It\'s a Surprise! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Discard and Draw Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as one of the discarded cards.
\n
\n* Caption: Rebel Rabble Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n'),(38770,2071,405352,405366,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Albatross Flies Away Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Elements: Budgeted, Persistent Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a luckier Draw.
\n
\n* Caption: Player Stasis Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for the next 88 hours.
\n
\n* Caption: Hot Potato Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity does not post to a Public Forum the phrase "Hot Potato" within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.
\n
\n Handed , Delayed Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Discard and Draw Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as one of the discarded cards.
\n
\n* Caption: Rebel Rabble Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n'),(38771,2071,405366,405417,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Albatross Flies Away Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Elements: Budgeted, Persistent Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a luckier Draw.
\n
\n* Caption: Player Stasis Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for the next 88 hours.
\n
\n* Caption: Hot Potato Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity does not post to a Public Forum the phrase "Hot Potato" within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.
\n
\n* Caption: It\'s a Surprise! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed , Delayed Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Discard and Draw Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as one of the discarded cards.
\n
\n* Caption: Rebel Rabble Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Development Quota: 2 Elements: None Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to draw X Cards for free.
\n'),(38772,2071,405417,405462,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Albatross Flies Away Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Elements: Budgeted, Persistent Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a luckier Draw.
\n
\n* Caption: Player Stasis Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for the next 88 hours.
\n
\n* Caption: Hot Potato Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity does not post to a Public Forum the phrase "Hot Potato" within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.
\n
\n* Caption: It\'s a Surprise! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed , Delayed Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Discard and Draw Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as one of the discarded cards.
\n
\n* Caption: Rebel Rabble Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Development Quota: 2 Elements: None Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to draw X Cards for free.
\n
\n* Caption: Police State Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, decrease the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for seven days. Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n'),(38773,2071,405462,405475,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Albatross Flies Away Quota: 1 Elements: Limited Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Elements: Budgeted, Persistent Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a luckier Draw.
\n
\n* Caption: Player Stasis Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for the next 88 hours.
\n
\n* Caption: Hot Potato Quota: 1 Elements: Persistent Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity does not post to a Public Forum the phrase "Hot Potato" within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.
\n
\n* Caption: It\'s a Surprise! Quota: 1 Elements: Handed , Delayed Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.
\n
\n* Caption: Discard and Draw Quota: 1 Elements: None Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as one of the discarded cards.
\n
\n* Caption: Rebel Rabble Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n
\n* Caption: Dud Development Quota: 2 Elements: None Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to draw X Cards for free.
\n
\n* Caption: Police State Elements: Budgeted, Restricted Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number of Rebellious Players, decrease the effective number of Rebellious Players by 1 for seven days. Count the day this Card is played as day #1.
\n
\n* Caption: Loot the Dead Quota: 1 Exploit: You may indicate one silent player. All of eir cards are immediately discarded from their hand.
\n'),(38774,2073,405330,405340,'Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Assistant Director of Personnel, e is retired from that Office.
\n
\nThe Assistant Director of Personnel cannot be Nominated for the Office of Speaker-Elect.
\n'),(38775,2073,405340,405518,' of Assistant Associate Director of Personnel, e is retired from that Office.
\n'),(38776,2074,405348,405404,' contrary nonwithstanding, notwithstanding, a Gambler with frozen flux may not play, discard, or transfer cards from eir hand, nor may the Deckmastor satisfy pending draws for that hand. hand. However, the Deckmastor may by public announcement discard cards from any Frozen Gambler as required by the Rules.
\n
\n contrary nonwithstanding. notwithstanding.
\n'),(38777,2075,405349,405361,'The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and three Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.
\n
\nIf a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.
\n
\nIf the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.
\n
\nIf the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game, and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular Patent Title Champion.
\n
\nExactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen. The Deckmastor shall transfer random cards from the hands of each frozen gambler to the deck, until each frozen gambler has either (a) a hand size equal to or less than the Minimum hand size or (b) no cards. Then, the Deckmaster shall deal cards to the winner up to the maximum hand size. When these tasks have been peformed, the Flux of every Gambler shall become free.
\n
\n winner\'s cards be dealt.
\n'),(38778,2075,405361,405378,'The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and three Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.
\n
\nIf a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.
\n
\nIf the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.
\n
\nIf the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game, and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular Patent Title Champion.
\n
\n become frozen. The Deckmastor shall transfer random cards from the hands of each frozen gambler to the deck, until each frozen gambler has either (a) a hand size equal to or less than the Minimum hand size or (b) no cards. Then, the Deckmaster shall deal cards to the winner up to the maximum hand size. When these tasks have been peformed, the Flux of every Gambler shall become free. frozen.
\n
\n be awarded nor shall extra winner\'s cards be dealt. awarded.
\n'),(38779,2075,405378,405490,' and three five Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.
\n
\nIf a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.
\n
\nIf the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.
\n
\nIf the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game, and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular Patent Title Champion.
\n
\nExactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen.
\n
\nIf no one has won the game in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded.
\n'),(38780,2075,405490,405516,'The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and five Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.
\n
\nIf a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.
\n
\nIf the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.
\n
\nIf the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game, and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular Patent Title Champion.
\n
\nExactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen.
\n
\n no one true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has won the game been made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded.
\n'),(38781,2075,405516,405645,'The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and five Winning Hands, each of which is Scoring Instructions contained in cardbooks, interpreted collectively, may define a list of cards with a hand size at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.
\n
\nIf a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to nonsite gambler as holding a winning hand at any a particular moment, moment. If so, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.
\n
\nIf the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.
\n
\nIf the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game, and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular Patent Title Champion.
\n
\n become frozen. frozen, and all heavy pending draws shall be deemed satisfied.
\n
\nIf no true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has been made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded.
\n'),(38782,2075,405645,405658,'The Scoring Instructions contained in cardbooks, interpreted collectively, may define a nonsite gambler as holding a winning hand at a particular moment. If so, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.
\n
\nIf the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.
\n
\n Title Champion. Champion. All Players\' hands become subject to a Hand Reduction to the Minimum Hand Size. After the winner\'s hand is so reduced, e gains a number of pending draws equal to the Maximum Hand Size.
\n
\nExactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen, and all heavy pending draws shall be deemed satisfied.
\n
\nIfIf no true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has been made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded. awarded nor extra winner\'s cards dealt.
\n'),(38783,2075,405658,405665,'The Scoring Instructions contained in cardbooks, interpreted collectively, may define a nonsite gambler as holding a winning hand at a particular moment. If so, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.
\n
\nIf the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.
\n
\n of Pokerface and Pokerface, the defined regular Patent Title Champion. All Champion, and a blue chip (non-transferrable) marked with the number of red and white chips in the Pot (after which the Pot is emptied). All Players\' hands become subject to a Hand Reduction to the Minimum Hand Size. After the winner\'s hand is so reduced, e gains a number of pending draws equal to the Maximum Hand Size.
\n
\nIf no true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has been made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded nor extra winner\'s cards dealt.
\n'),(38784,2075,405665,405679,' winning hand at a particular moment. If so, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to announce hand. Any Player may allege that a Gambler nonsite gambler holds a winning hand. The allegation is considered true if any nonsite gambler holds or has held a winning hand. hand at the time of the allegation.
\n
\n the announcement allegation is false, true, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, transfer 1 card at random from following events occur in order, immediately upon the announcing Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck. allegation being made:
\n
\nIf the announcement is true, the(i) All nonsite gamblers holding Gambler Wins winning hands are deemed to win the Game, game simultaneously, and is are awarded the boon of Pokerface, the defined regular Patent Title Champion, five white chips, and a blue chip (non-transferrable) marked with the number of red and white chips in the Pot (after which the Pot is emptied). All Players\' hands become subject to a Hand Reduction to the Minimum Hand Size. After the winner\'s hand is so reduced, e gains a number of pending draws equal to the Maximum Hand Size. Pot.
\n
\nIf(ii) The pot is emptied.
\n
\n(iii) All Scoring Instructions in the Blueprints Cardbook are repealed.
\n
\n(iv) All Players\' hands become subject to a Hand Reduction to the Minimum Hand Size.
\n
\nIf the allegation is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as possible, discard 1 card at random from the hand of the Gambler who made the allegation.
\n
\nIf no true announcement allegation of a winning hand or a Skunk has been made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce allege a Skunk, which shall trigger which, if true, triggers the effects of a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded nor extra winner\'s cards dealt. (iii) and (iv) above.
\n'),(38785,2076,405364,405450,'Caption: Your Turn Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of Delay of Game, reportable by you.
\n
\n the deck, discard pile, is automatically transferred from the Deck discard pile to your hand.
\n
\nCaption: Enforced Charity Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2 Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.
\n
\nCaption: Drop your Weapon Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Presto! Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically transferred to your hand, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Not Your Turn Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: You may specify a card play that has occurred in the past 48 hours, and (1) that card shall be deemed to have not been played, and (2) the gambler who originally played that card may not play a copy of that card for the next 72 hours.
\n
\nCaption: Reshuffle Quota: 3 Elements: Asleep Exploit: The Deckmastor must Reshuffle before dealing any cards.
\n'),(38786,2076,405450,405463,'The following classes of cards are defined:
\n
\nCaption: Your Turn Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of Delay of Game, reportable by you.
\n
\nCaption: Discard Picking Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that card, if one is still in the discard pile, is automatically transferred from the discard pile to your hand.
\n
\nCaption: Enforced Charity Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2 Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.
\n
\nCaption: Drop your Weapon Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Presto! Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically transferred to your hand, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Not Your Turn Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: You may specify a card play that has occurred in the past 48 hours, and (1) that card shall be deemed to have not been played, and (2) the gambler who originally played that card may not play a copy of that card for the next 72 hours.
\n
\nCaption: Reshuffle Quota: 3 Elements: Asleep Exploit: The Deckmastor must Reshuffle before dealing any cards.
\n'),(38787,2076,405463,405491,'The following classes of cards are defined:
\n
\nCaption: Your Turn Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of Delay of Game, reportable by you.
\n
\nCaption: Discard Picking Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that card, if one is still in the discard pile, is automatically transferred from the discard pile to your hand.
\n
\nCaption: Enforced Charity Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2 Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.
\n
\nCaption: Drop your Weapon Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Presto! Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically transferred to your hand, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Not Your Turn Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: You may specify a card play that has occurred in the past 48 hours, and (1) that card shall be deemed to have not been played, and (2) the gambler who originally played that card may not play a copy of that card for the next 72 hours.
\n
\n Exploit: The Deckmastor must Reshuffle before dealing any cards. You may perform a Reshuffle.
\n'),(38788,2076,405491,405540,'The following classes of cards are defined:
\n
\nCaption: Your Turn Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of Delay of Game, reportable by you.
\n
\nCaption: Discard Picking Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that card, if one is still in the discard pile, is automatically transferred from the discard pile to your hand.
\n
\nCaption: Enforced Charity Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2 Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.
\n
\nCaption: Drop your Weapon Elements: Budgeted Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Presto! Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your choice, is automatically transferred to your hand, provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.
\n
\nCaption: Not Your Turn Elements: Budgeted, Delayed Exploit: You may specify a card play that has occurred in the past 48 hours, and (1) that card shall be deemed to have not been played, and (2) the gambler who originally played that card may not play a copy of that card for the next 72 hours.
\n
\nCaption: Reshuffle Quota: 3 Elements: Asleep Exploit: You may perform a Reshuffle.
\n'),(38789,2077,405365,405418,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Coalition Elements: Grafty, Budgeted Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Voting Potential of an indicated Player by N by paying a fee of N for yourself, or 2 times N for another Player.
\n
\n Grafty, Budgeted Budgeted, Powered Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Political Charge by N by paying a fee of 4 times N. If undefined elsewhere, the Political Charge is a positive integer, tracked by the Assessor, which begins at 4. 4. No fee required by the Powered element need be paid to activate this exploit.
\n
\n* Caption: Policy Elements: Budgeted Exploit: You may sanitize a Proposal, as described elsewhere in the Rules.
\n
\n* Caption: Procedure Elements: Budgeted Exploit: You may abort and make undistributable any non-sane Proposal.
\n'),(38790,2077,405418,405476,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Coalition Elements: Grafty, Budgeted Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Voting Potential of an indicated Player by N by paying a fee of N for yourself, or 2 times N for another Player.
\n
\n* Caption: Patronage Elements: Grafty, Budgeted, Powered Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Political Charge by N by paying a fee of 4 times N. If undefined elsewhere, the Political Charge is a positive integer, tracked by the Assessor, which begins at 4. No fee required by the Powered element need be paid to activate this exploit.
\n
\n Elements: Budgeted Budgeted, Powered Exploit: You may sanitize a Proposal, as described elsewhere in the Rules.
\n
\n* Caption: Procedure Elements: Budgeted Exploit: You may abort and make undistributable any non-sane Proposal.
\n'),(38791,2077,405476,405424,'The following Classes of Cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Coalition Elements: Grafty, Budgeted Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Voting Potential of an indicated Player by N by paying a fee of N for yourself, or 2 times N for another Player.
\n
\n* Caption: Patronage Elements: Grafty, Budgeted, Powered Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Political Charge by N by paying a fee of 4 times N. If undefined elsewhere, the Political Charge is a positive integer, tracked by the Assessor, which begins at 4. No fee required by the Powered element need be paid to activate this exploit.
\n
\n Elements: Budgeted, Powered Budgeted Exploit: You may sanitize a Proposal, as described elsewhere in the Rules.
\n
\n* Caption: Procedure Elements: Budgeted Exploit: You may abort and make undistributable any non-sane Proposal.
\n'),(38792,2078,405357,405436,'Initiative is a stuck player switch, tracked by the Assessor, with values Gote and Sente.
\n
\nA Takeover Proposal is a proposal meeting these requirements:
\n
\n(a) It is labelled as a Takeover Proposal. (b) No Takeover Proposal has been submitted earlier in the same month. (c) It specifies a set of players (hereafter the Corporate Raiders) that is no larger than P/2 or smaller than P/3, where P is the number of active noisy players at the time of submission.
\n
\nRules to the Contrary nonwithstanding, a Takeover Proposal is both Democratic and Sane.
\n
\n period, all players have their the initiative flipped of each player is set to Gote. At the end of a Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, all players have their the initiative flipped of each player is set as follows: (a) Adopted: All Corporate Raiders gain Sente. (b) Rejected: All other players gain Sente. (c) Failed quorum: No one gains Sente.
\n'),(38793,2078,405436,405485,'Initiative is a stuck player switch, tracked by the Assessor, with values Gote and Sente.
\n
\nA Takeover Proposal is a proposal meeting these requirements:
\n
\n(a) It is labelled as a Takeover Proposal. (b) No Takeover Proposal has been submitted earlier in the same month. (c) It specifies a set of players (hereafter the Corporate Raiders) that is no larger than P/2 or smaller than P/3, where P is the number of active noisy players at the time of submission.
\n
\nRules to the Contrary nonwithstanding, a Takeover Proposal is both Democratic and Sane.
\n
\nAtUpon submission of a Takeover Proposal, all other Takeover Proposals become Undistributable and are removed from the Pool.
\n
\nAt the beginning of a Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, the initiative of each player is set to Gote. At the end of a Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, the initiative of each player is set as follows: (a)
\n
\n(a) Adopted: All Corporate Raiders gain Sente. (b) Rejected: All other players gain Sente. (c) Failed quorum: No one gains Sente.
\n'),(38794,2079,405370,405464,'The following card is defined:
\n
\n the Deckmaster Deckmastor shall simultaneously transfer all cards from non-Deck hands to a temporary Gambler known as Fate. E shall then deal cards at random from Fate to each Gambler until each Gambler has the same number of cards as e had immediately before Fate took a hand. If, between the time this card is Played and the time Fate\'s cards are dealt, exactly a single Player publicly claims to be The Prettiest One, the Deckmastor shall transfer this card to em as soon as possible after Fate\'s cards are dealt. The Deckmastor is encouraged use Heisenberg\'s Law in dealing hands from Fate.
\n'),(38795,2079,405464,405477,' following card is classes of cards are defined:
\n
\nCaption: Chaos Apple Quota: 1 Elements: Handed, Delayed, Kallisti! Exploit: If this card has not been Played in the current quarter, then, as soon as possible after this card is played, the Deckmastor shall simultaneously transfer all cards from non-Deck hands to a temporary Gambler known as Fate. E shall then deal cards at random from Fate to each Gambler until each Gambler has the same number of cards as e had immediately before Fate took a hand. If, between the time this card is Played and the time Fate\'s cards are dealt, exactly a single Player publicly claims to be The Prettiest One, the Deckmastor shall transfer this card to em as soon as possible after Fate\'s cards are dealt. The Deckmastor is encouraged use Heisenberg\'s Law in dealing hands from Fate.
\n
\nCaption: Chaos Reborn Quota: 1 Elements: Handed, Kallisti! Exploit: If Chaos Apple has been Played in the current quarter, then, you may play Chaos Apple within five minutes of playing this card as if Chaos Apple did not have the words "If this card has not been Played in the current quarter" in its exploit.
\n'),(38796,2079,405477,405492,'The following classes of cards are defined:
\n
\n been Played played in the current quarter, then, as soon as possible after this card is played, the Deckmastor shall then you may simultaneously transfer all cards from non-Deck hands that are not in the Deck or Discard Pile to a temporary Gambler known as Fate. E As soon as possible after this card is played, the Deckmastor shall then deal cards at random from Fate to each Gambler until each Gambler has the same number of cards as e had immediately before Fate took a hand. If, between the time this card is Played and the time Fate\'s cards are dealt, exactly a single Player publicly claims to be The Prettiest One, the Deckmastor shall transfer this card to em as soon as possible after Fate\'s cards are dealt. The Deckmastor is encouraged use Heisenberg\'s Law in dealing hands from Fate.
\n
\nCaption: Chaos Reborn Quota: 1 Elements: Handed, Kallisti! Exploit: If Chaos Apple has been Played in the current quarter, then, you may play Chaos Apple within five minutes of playing this card as if Chaos Apple did not have the words "If this card has not been Played in the current quarter" in its exploit.
\n'),(38797,2080,405372,405380,'WhenIf an Interested Proposal is adopted, the Proposer shall gain one pending draw, regardless of any applicable Hand Limit. may draw from the deck by announcing the Proposal number while drawing, provided that e does so within a week after the proposal\'s adoption and that e has not already done so for the same proposal.
\n
\nWhenIf a Disinterested Proposal is adopted, the Proposer shall gain one pending draw, subject to any applicable may draw from the deck by announcing the Proposal number while drawing; so long as the Proposer\'s Hand Limit. Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number of Offices e holds, the Proposer performs the draw within a week after the proposal\'s adoption, and the Proposer has not already done so for the same proposal.
\n'),(38798,2080,405380,405493,'If an Interested a Proposal is adopted, the Proposer may draw from the deck by announcing the Proposal number while drawing, provided that e does so within a week after the proposal\'s adoption and that e has not already done so for the same proposal.
\n
\nIf a Disinterested Proposal is adopted, the Proposer may draw from the deck by announcing the Proposal number while drawing; so long as the Proposer\'s Hand Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number of Offices e holds, the Proposer performs the draw within a week after the proposal\'s adoption, and the Proposer has not already done so for the same proposal.
\n'),(38799,2080,405493,405506,' while drawing, provided that e does drawing; so long as the Proposer\'s Hand Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number of Offices e holds, the Proposer performs the draw within a week after the proposal\'s adoption adoption, and that e the Proposer has not already done so for the same proposal.
\n'),(38800,2080,405506,405634,'IfWithin a Proposal is adopted, the Proposer may week after a proposal\'s adoption, if its proposer would be permitted to draw from the deck by announcing the Proposal number while drawing; so long as the Proposer\'s Hand Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number of Offices a card for a fee, then e holds, the Proposer performs the may draw within a week after the card by announcement, specifying in eir announcement that proposal\'s adoption, and the Proposer has not already done so number. E can only perform this action once for the same adoption of that proposal.
\n'),(38801,2080,405634,405646,'WithinThe maximum hand size for a week after Player is defined as the maximum hand size in the Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the Speakership) that the Player holds.
\n
\nAny Player may draw up to three heavy cards in a single month by announcement. If a Player draws a proposal\'s adoption, if its proposer would card without specifying the explicit circumstances allowing the draw, it shall be permitted considered an attempt to draw a card for a fee, then e one of these heavy cards.
\n
\nAny Player may draw a one free card by announcement, specifying in a single month, by noting it is eir announcement that proposal\'s number. E can only perform this action once free draw for the adoption of month.
\n
\nAny Player may draw one heavy card for each Proposal e proposes that proposal. is adopted, by noting the Proposal\'s number.
\n'),(38802,2080,405646,405660,'The maximum hand size for aAny Player is defined as the maximum hand size may draw up to three cards in the Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the Speakership) that the Player holds. a single month by announcement.
\n
\n draw up to three heavy cards in a single month by announcement. If a Player draws a card without specifying the explicit circumstances allowing the draw, it shall be considered an attempt to draw one of these heavy cards.
\n
\nAny Player may draw one free card in a single month, by noting it is eir free draw for the month.
\n
\nAny Player may draw one heavy card for each Proposal e proposes that is adopted, by noting the Proposal\'s number.
\n'),(38803,2080,405660,405667,'Any Player may draw up toAt the beginning of each month, each player gains three cards in a single month by announcement. white chips and one red chip.
\n
\nAny Player may draw one card for each Proposal e proposes that is adopted, by notingUpon the adoption of a proposal, the Proposal\'s number. author gains one white chip.
\n
\nA player who gains a Boon gains a red chip. A player who gains an Albatross loses a chip.
\n'),(38804,2083,405379,405659,'As soon as possible after any gambler\'sThe Rules may declare that a nonsite Gambler\'s hand becomes frozen, the Deckmastor shall perform is subject to a Hand Reduction. A particular hand reduction must have a maximum hand size associated with it; if none is defined, the following actions Maximum Hand Size in order: the Deckmastor\'s budget is used.
\n
\n1) Calculate and publicly announce the Card Tax for each frozen gambler. The Card TaxAs soon as possible after a requirement for a frozen gambler is equal to the hand size of that gambler less the minimum hand size. The Card Tax shall be calculated as of the moment reduction arises, the gambler\'s hand became frozen. Deckmastor shall:
\n
\n2) From every frozen gambler in turn, transfer cards selected at random from(i) Satisfy all satisfiable pending draws for that gambler\'s hand to the Deck until eir gambler and announce a pending hand size has been reduced by an amount not less than eir Card Tax or e has no cards remaining. reduction;
\n
\n3) If the hands were frozen because of a win, deal cards to the winner until eir hand size has been increased by the maximum hand size less the minimum hand size, calculated as of the moment the winner\'s hand became frozen.(ii) Wait at least four days, during which e may not satisfy pending draws for that gambler;
\n
\n4) Publicly announce(iii) Discard cards at random from that the table Gambler\'s hand until eir hand size is open for business. equal to or less than maximum associated with the reduction.
\n
\nUpon publication of an announcement as in 4), the Flux of every(iv) If a gambler shall become free. If loses no cards during a reduction, and has not played, transferred or discarded a card since the last reduction, the Deckmastor makes a public announcement as in 4) when shall discard one card at random from the gambler\'s hand (if it has any cards).
\n
\nIf a dispute on the gambler\'s hand size or more gamblers are frozen but steps 1), 2), pending draws is raised and 3) have not been completed, then the announcement is still valid, but resolved prior to (iii), above, the Deckmastor must complete steps 1), 2), and 3) as soon as possible. If shall not perform (iii) for that hand until the Deckmastor\'s error dispute is not made in good faith, resolved. If no dispute is raised prior to (iii) being performed, then the reduction shall stand regardless of subsequent disputes. However, a Judge in such a dispute may Order the Deckmastor to perform further card transfers to resolve such disputes.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor knowingly reduces a hand incorrectly, e commits the Class 4 Crime of Stacking Card Thievery.
\n
\nIf more than one hand reduction is pending for the same hand, then the Deckmastor need only perform the reduction for the reduction with the lowest associated maximum; this shall satisfy all pending reductions.
\n
\nAt the beginning of each month, each Player\'s hand becomes subject to a Hand Reduction to the maximum hand size in the Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the Deck. Speakership) that e holds.
\n'),(38805,2083,405659,405666,'The Rules may declare that a nonsite Gambler\'s hand is subject to a Hand Reduction. A particular hand reduction must have a maximum hand size associated with it; if none is defined, the Maximum Hand Size in the Deckmastor\'s budget is used.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a requirement for a reduction arises, the Deckmastor shall:
\n
\n all satisfiable pending draws for requirements to deal cards to that gambler for cashed-in chips and announce a pending hand reduction;
\n
\n which e the gambler may not satisfy pending draws for that gambler; cash in any chips;
\n
\n(iii) Discard cards at random from that Gambler\'s hand until eir hand size is equal to or less than maximum associated with the reduction.
\n
\n(iv) If a gambler loses no cards during a reduction, and has not played, transferred or discarded a card since the last reduction, the Deckmastor shall discard one card at random from the gambler\'s hand (if it has any cards).
\n
\nIf a dispute on the gambler\'s hand size or pending draws is raised and not resolved prior to (iii), above, the Deckmastor shall not perform (iii) for that hand until the dispute is resolved. If no dispute is raised prior to (iii) being performed, then the reduction shall stand regardless of subsequent disputes. However, a Judge in such a dispute may Order the Deckmastor to perform further card transfers to resolve such disputes.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor knowingly reduces a hand incorrectly, e commits the Class 4 Crime of Card Thievery.
\n
\nIf more than one hand reduction is pending for the same hand, then the Deckmastor need only perform the reduction for the reduction with the lowest associated maximum; this shall satisfy all pending reductions.
\n
\nAt the beginning of each month, each Player\'s hand becomes subject to a Hand Reduction to the maximum hand size in the Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the Speakership) that e holds.
\n'),(38806,2083,405666,405680,'The Rules may declare that a nonsite Gambler\'s hand is subject to a Hand Reduction. A particular hand reduction must have a maximum hand size associated with it; if none is defined, the Maximum Hand Size in the Deckmastor\'s budget is used.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a requirement for a reduction arises, the Deckmastor shall:
\n
\n(i) Satisfy all requirements to deal cards to that gambler for cashed-in chips and announce a Announce the pending hand reduction;
\n
\n four days, during which days after the gambler may not cash in any chips; announcement;
\n
\n(iii) Discard cards at random from that Gambler\'s hand until eir hand size is equal to or less than maximum associated with the reduction.
\n
\n has not played, neither played nor transferred or discarded a card since the last reduction, the Deckmastor shall discard one card at random from the gambler\'s hand (if it has any cards).
\n
\nIf a dispute on the gambler\'s hand size or pending draws is raised and not resolved prior to (iii), above, the Deckmastor shall not perform (iii) for that hand until the dispute is resolved. If no dispute is raised prior to (iii) being performed, then the reduction shall stand regardless of subsequent disputes. However, a Judge in such a dispute may Order the Deckmastor to perform further card transfers to resolve such disputes.
\n
\nIf the Deckmastor knowingly reduces a hand incorrectly, e commits the Class 4 Crime of Card Thievery.
\n
\nIf more than one hand reduction is pending for the same hand, then the Deckmastor need only perform the reduction for the reduction with the lowest associated maximum; this shall satisfy all pending reductions.
\n
\n each month, each Quarter, every Player\'s hand becomes subject to a Hand Reduction hand reduction to the maximum hand size in the Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the Speakership) that e holds. holds. If at any time there are more unsatisfied pending draws then cards in the Deck and Discard Pile put together, the Deckmastor may announce a Shortage, with subjects every Player\'s hand to such a hand reduction.
\n'),(38807,2084,405399,405465,'The following classes of cards are defined:
\n
\n* Caption: Greedy Bastard Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Gain one Kudo, but also gain the Albatross of Greed.
\n
\n* Caption: Charity Brings Happiness Elements: Budgeted Exploit: For a fee of one Kudo you may indicate any other player to gain one Kudo, as long as they have fewer Kudos than you do and is not yourself. Upon doing this you gain the boon of Charity.
\n
\n all gamblers, besides the deck, Players have a \'Thieves Thieves in the Night\' Night card in their hand, and the player you indicate does not have a \'Thieves Thieves in the Night\' Night card in their hand, That that player losses one Kudo and you gain one Kudo. For For each of the aforementioned stipulations that is false upon the playing of this card, you gain the Albatross of Thief. Thief.
\n
\n* Caption: Instant Gratification Elements: Restricted , Budgeted Exploit: Indicate one of your own Boons. You instantly lose that Boon and gain 1 Kudo.
\n
\n* Caption: Instant Punishment Elements: Restricted , Budgeted Exploit: Indicate one of your own Albatrosses. You instantly lose that Albatross and Lose 1 Kudo.
\n
\n* Caption: Instant Millionaire Quota: 1 Exploit: Lose all of your Boons, but gain twice that number of Kudos.
\n'),(38808,2085,405396,405461,''),(38809,2085,405461,405525,'A Legislator who is Mute may, with two support, submit a body of text with Mute Exemption. This text becomes a Proposal if it meets all rule requirements for a Proposal other than the Proposer not being Mute.
\n
\n have been awarded by other rules for the passing of the Proposal.
\n'),(38810,2086,405406,405419,'The University is an Entity.
\n
\nAs President of the University, the Speaker is the sole Executor of the University, but may take no action on behalf of The University except as explicitly permitted by the Rules.
\n
\n The Herald SotU shall flip the Education switch to Faculty Member for a Player as soon as possible after that Player is awarded a Degree. The Herald SotU is the recordkeepor of Education.
\n'),(38811,2086,405419,405478,'The University is an Entity.
\n
\nAs President of the University, theThe Speaker is the sole President and Limited Executor of the University, but may take no action on behalf of The University except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. University.
\n
\nEducation is a stuck Player switch with values Student and Faculty Member. The SotU shall flip the Education switch to Faculty Member for a Player as soon as possible after that Player is awarded a Degree. The SotU is the recordkeepor of Education.
\n'),(38812,2086,405478,405635,'The University University, also known as the Library, is an Entity. a site. The Speaker is the president of and a limited executor of the University.
\n
\nThe Speaker is President and Limited Executor of the University.
\n
\nEducationEducation is a stuck Player player switch with values Student and Faculty Member. The SotU shall flip Secretary of the Education switch to Faculty Member for a Player as University (SotU) is the recordkeepor of education. As soon as possible after that Player a player is awarded a Degree. The degree, the SotU is shall flip the recordkeepor education of Education. that player to Faculty Member.
\n'),(38813,2086,405635,405672,'The University, also known as the Library, is a site. The Speaker is the president of and a limited executor of the University.
\n
\nEducationEducation is a stuck player switch with values Student and Faculty Member. The Secretary of the University (SotU) Herald is the recordkeepor of education. As As soon as possible after a player is awarded a degree, the SotU Herald shall flip the education of that player to Faculty Member.
\n'),(38814,2089,405409,405468,'The University (hereafter the Library) is a Gambler. Whenever the Library has fewer than five Cards, the Deckmastor shall as soon as possible deal randomly chosen Cards to the Library until it has five cards.
\n
\nA Player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified Card from the Library by paying a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. The fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The Card is considered reserved and may not be checked out by any Player until it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.
\n
\nAs soon as possibleImmediately after a Card is checked out from the Library and it is within the Speaker\'s ability to do so, the Speaker shall transfer the Card transfered from the Library to the Borrower.
\n'),(38815,2089,405468,405479,'The University (hereafter the Library)"The Library" is a synonym for "The University".
\n
\nThe Library is a Gambler. Whenever Whenever the Library has fewer than five Cards, the Deckmastor shall as soon as possible deal randomly chosen Cards to the Library until it has five cards.
\n
\nA Player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified Card from the Library by paying a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. The fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The Card is considered reserved and may not be checked out by any Player until it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.
\n
\nImmediately after a Card is checked out from the Library it is transfered from the Library to the Borrower.
\n
\nThe President of the University may discard any card in the possession of the Library without two objections.
\n'),(38816,2089,405479,405637,'"The Library"Whenever the Library\'s hand size is less than five, it gains a synonym for "The University". pending draw.
\n
\nThe Library isA player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a Gambler. Whenever specified card from the Library has fewer than five Cards, by paying a Fee for the Deckmastor shall as soon as possible deal randomly chosen Cards Library\'s upkeep. The fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The card is reserved and may not be checked out by any player until it is dealt to the Library until it has five cards. again by the Deckmastor.
\n
\nA Player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified Card from the Library by paying a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. The fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The Card is considered reserved and may not be checked out by any Player until it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.
\n
\nImmediately afterWhenever a Card card is checked out from the Library Library, it is transfered from the Library transferred to the Borrower.
\n
\nThe President of the University may discard any card in the possession of the Library without two objections.
\n'),(38817,2089,405637,405649,'Whenever the Library\'s hand size is less than five, it gains a pending draw.
\n
\n by paying announcement, which must satisfy a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. number of satisfiable pending draws that e, in fact, possesses. The fee number is 2 Kudos pending draws for Students and 1 Kudo pending draw for Faculty Members. The card is reserved and may not be checked out by any player until it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.
\n
\nWhenever a card is checked out from the Library, it is transferred to the Borrower.
\n
\nThe President of the University may discard any card in the possession of the Library without two objections.
\n'),(38818,2089,405649,405673,'Whenever the Library\'s hand sizeThe Library is a site. The Deckmastor is less than five, it gains a pending draw. limited executor of the Library.
\n
\nA player (hereafterAs soon as possible after the Borrower) may check out a specified card from the Library by announcement, which must satisfy a number beginning of satisfiable pending draws that e, each quarter, the Deckmastor shall discard all cards in fact, possesses. The number is 2 pending draws for Students and 1 pending draw for Faculty Members. The card is reserved and may not be checked out by any player until it is dealt to the Library again by possession of the Deckmastor. Library. The Library then gains five pending draws.
\n
\nWheneverA player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified card is checked out from the Library, it is transferred to Library by paying a fee. The amount of the Borrower. fee is 2 for Students and 1 for Faculty Members.
\n
\nThe President of the University may discard anyWhenever a card in is checked out from the possession of Library, it is transferred to the Library without two objections. Borrower.
\n'),(38819,2091,405420,405529,'The Secretary of the University (SotU) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the University.
\n
\nThe SotU\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n(a) A list of all active Research Grants;
\n
\n(b) A list of all active Book club selections;
\n
\n Each players player\'s Education.
\n
\n(d) A list of who has checked out cards from the library.
\n
\n(e) The running history of all of the preceding.
\n'),(38820,2091,405529,405636,'The Secretary of the University (SotU) is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the University.
\n
\nThe SotU\'s Weekly Report shall include:
\n
\n Research Grants; Grants.
\n
\n Book club selections; Club Selections.
\n
\n(c) Each player\'s Education.
\n
\n(d) A list of who has checked out cards from the library.
\n
\n(e) The running history of all of the preceding.
\n'),(38821,2095,405440,405505,' of Prodigy. Prodigy, unless the Proposor has already received five or more such awards.
\n
\n* If an Interested Democratic Proposal passes, and no Votes were cast AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor the Boon of Zeitgeist.
\n
\n* If a proposal submitted on Guy Fawkes Day is adopted then the Assessor shall award the proposer the boon of a penny.
\n'),(38822,2095,405505,405526,'* If a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was submitted by a Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor the Boon of Prodigy, unless the Proposor has already received five or more such awards.
\n
\n If an Interested a Democratic Proposal passes, and no Votes were cast AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor the Boon of Zeitgeist.
\n
\n* If a proposal submitted on Guy Fawkes Day is adopted then the Assessor shall award the proposer the boon of a penny.
\n'),(38823,2095,405526,405589,'* IfIf a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was proposal is submitted by a Player within and adopted during that Player\'s player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor shall award that player the Proposor the Boon boon of Prodigy, unless the Proposor has already received five or more such awards. Prodigy.
\n
\n* IfIf a Democratic Proposal passes, proposal is adopted, and no Votes were cast nobody voted AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award its proposer the Proposor the Boon boon of Zeitgeist.
\n
\n* IfIf a proposal submitted on Guy Fawkes Day is adopted adopted, then the Assessor shall award the its proposer the boon of a penny. A Penny.
\n'),(38824,2096,405454,405496,'If an Ephemeral Patent Title is earned between one week before the designated end of the last Quarter and one week before the end of the current Quarter then it mustA Contract may be awarded before the turning of made into a new parchment. For every one of these Ephemeral Patent Titles that has not been awarded Card-Carrying Contract by the end of the turning whomever is responsible for awarding the Ephemeral Patent Title commits the Class .1 Infraction of Ephemeral Nondisclosure which in the case its Notary acting with two support and without two objections. A player may only be Notary of Boons is reportable by whomever did not receive eir Boon, or for Albatrosses any player. one Card-Carrying Contract at a time.
\n
\nThe announcement thatA Card-Carrying Contract is a proposal does not earn gambler, and may perform the following actions only as explicitly permitted by its regulations:
\n
\n1. As long as the proposer Contract has at least three Members and its hand size is less than the maximum hand size, it may draw a number of cards each month equal to its number of Members at the Boon beginning of Tapecutter must also follow these time restrictions. the month divided by two and rounded up.
\n
\n2. Transfer or discard cards.
\n
\nA Card-Carrying Contract may not play cards.
\n'),(38825,2096,405496,405552,'A Contract may be made into a Card-Carrying Contract by its Notary acting with two supportIf an ephemeral patent title is earned between one week before the end of the previous quarter and without two objections. A player may only one week before the end of the current quarter, then it must be Notary awarded before the turning of one Card-Carrying Contract at a time. new parchment.
\n
\nA Card-Carrying Contract isThe announcement that a gambler, and may perform the following actions only as explicitly permitted by its regulations:
\n
\n1. As long as the Contract has at least three Members and its hand size is less than proposal does not earn the maximum hand size, it may draw a number of cards each month equal to its number of Members at proposer the beginning boon of the month divided by two and rounded up.
\n
\n2. Transfer or discard cards.
\n
\nA Card-Carrying Contract may not play cards. tapecutter must also follow these time restrictions.
\n'),(38826,2097,405459,405554,'A contest Contract may be made into a Card-Carrying Contest Contract by its contestmaster Notary acting with two support and without two objections. A player may only be contestmaster Notary of one card-carrying contest Card-Carrying Contract at a time.
\n
\n Card-Carrying Contest Contract is a gambler, and may perform the following actions only as explicitly permitted by its regulations: 1. As long as the contest has at least three members and its hand size is less than the maximum hand size, it may draw a number of cards each month equal to its number of members at the beginning of the month divided by two and rounded up. 2. Transfer or discard cards. regulations:
\n
\nA1. As long as the Contract has at least three Members and its hand size is less than the maximum hand size, it may draw a number of cards each month equal to its number of Members at the beginning of the month divided by two and rounded up.
\n
\n2. Transfer or discard cards.
\n
\nA Card-Carrying Contest Contract may not play cards.
\n'),(38827,2101,405466,405494,'The following classes of cards are defined:
\n
\n Caption: Library Library Renewal Elements: Budgeted Exploit: Upon playing this card you You may indicate a number 1 through 5. ASAP As soon as possible after you do this the speaker Speaker must randomly discard that many cards from the Library\'s hand that are not reserved. hand. If the Speaker has discarded all non reserved there are fewer cards in the Library\'s hand then e does not need to the number you indicate the Speaker must discard any more. them all.
\n
\n Caption: Library Library Card Elements: Budgeted, Limited Exploit: Check Check a card out from the Library for no fee.
\n'),(38828,2104,405497,405553,'The University encourages Card experimentation.
\n
\nA Player may publish a piece of text and note that itThere is a Card Blueprint. If this text contains a Caption, a copy of that Card is created in the possession of cardbook called the Library. The Card Blueprint Blueprints Cardbook, which may also specify Elements and Exploits, as defined be changed by other rules, and these are included on the Card Proposal, or as specified in the same way they would be if they were included on a rules-defined Card. this Rule.
\n
\nCards created by this method haveAny Player may, with support, add a Quota of 1 and are considered Blueprint to be in eir Trial Run. the Blueprints cardbook. A Card in its Trial Run may not Blueprint must be checked out of the Library until seven days have passed since its creation. Any player may destroy a Card in its Trial Run by announcing e does so. valid card definition.
\n
\nA CardAny card added in its Trial Run this manner shall have a quota of 0.
\n
\nAny Player may, with support, remove a Blueprint with a quota of 0 from the Blueprints cardbook.
\n
\nIf a Blueprint has been in the Blueprints Cardbook for over four days, any Player may change the quota of that Blueprint from 0 to 1 (if the card is transferred unique) or from 0 to a number not greater than the Library after it number of active Players (if the card is played. rare or common), without three Objections.
\n
\nIf the quota of a card is changed in this manner, the Deckmastor shall create one of the copies of that card in The Library rather than in the Deck.
\n'),(38829,2104,405553,405650,'The University encourages Card experimentation.
\n
\nThere is a cardbook called the Blueprints Cardbook, which may be changed by Proposal, or as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nAny Player may, with support, add a Blueprint to the Blueprints cardbook. A Blueprint must be a valid card definition.
\n
\nAny card added in this manner shall have a quota of 0.
\n
\nAny Player may, with support, remove a Blueprint with a quota of 0 from the Blueprints cardbook.
\n
\nIf a Blueprint has been in the Blueprints Cardbook for over four days, any Player may change the quota of that Blueprint from 0 to 1 (if the card is unique) or from 0 to a number not greater than the number of active Players (if the card is rare or common), without three Objections.
\n
\nIf the quota of a card is changed in this manner, the Deckmastor shall create one of the copies of that card in The Library rather than in the Deck.
\n
\nAny Player may add, delete, or amend a Scoring Instruction in the Blueprints Cardbook, with M support and without N Objections, where M is greater than or equal to N at the time the change is performed, and N is at least 1.
\n'),(38830,2104,405650,405674,'The University encourages Card experimentation.
\n
\nThere is a cardbook called the Blueprints Cardbook, which may be changed by Proposal, or as specified in this Rule.
\n
\nAny Player may, with support, add a Blueprint to the Blueprints cardbook. A Blueprint must be a valid card definition.
\n
\nAny card added in this manner shall have a quota of 0.
\n
\nAny Player may, with support, remove a Blueprint with a quota of 0 from the Blueprints cardbook.
\n
\nIf a Blueprint has been in the Blueprints Cardbook for over four days, any Player may change the quota of that Blueprint from 0 to 1 (if the card is unique) or from 0 to a number not greater than the number of active Players (if the card is rare or common), without three Objections.
\n
\nIf the quota of a card is changed in this manner, the Deckmastor shall create one of the copies of that card in The Library rather than in the Deck.
\n
\n with M support and without N Objections, where M is greater than or equal to N at the time the change is performed, and N is at least 1. Agoran Consent.
\n'),(38831,2105,405481,405542,' | <- GREAT <- GOETHE BARRIER REEF _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | | / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE ___/ | | \\_ __/ | | | / | | \\ / O <- L. DISAPPOINTMENT |/\\ SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\ | | | |_ | | | EMERALD -> \\ \\ |__________=_____, \\ / | | | <- BRISBANE \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\ \\ | |_______/ \\/ | | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE -> \\ __/ \\_ / / PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA \\_/ \\ | \\_ _| | __ __ | | \\__/ \\___=_ __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___| MELBOURNE / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/
\n
\n/\\__ | \\|/ _,.---v---._ /\\__ /\\__/\\ / \\ | | | \\_ _/ / \\ | / \\_/ \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART HOBART \\ \\_ \\ ,__/ / ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~
\n'),(38832,2105,405542,405689,' | | .___o ) | / | | \\ ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\ | | | |_ | | | EMERALD -> \\ \\ |__________=_____, \\ / | | | <- BRISBANE \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\ \\ | |_______/ \\/ | | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE -> \\ __/ \\_ / / PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA \\_/ \\ | \\_ _| __ __ | | \\__/ __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___| / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/ \\|/ _,.---v---._ /\\__ /\\__/\\ / \\ | | \\_ _/ / \\ | / \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART \\ \\_ \\ ,__/ / ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~
\n'),(38833,2105,405689,497262,' BARRIER REEF _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | | / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE ___/ | | \\_ __/ | | .___o ) | / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\ | | | |_ | | | EMERALD -> \\ \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE / | | | <- BRISBANE <-\' \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\ \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE HOWE -> \\ __/ PERTH __/ \\_ / / PERTH -> | _ <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG <-. / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA \\_/ \\ | \\_ _| __ __ | | | \\__/ __ \\ / __ \\___=_ \\___=_ ___| / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE MANUBOURNE -> \\/ \\|/ _,.---v---._ /\\__ /\\__ /\\__/\\ / \\ | | | \\_ _/ / \\ | | / \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ \\_/ <- HOBART \\ \\_ \\ ,__/ / ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~
\n'),(38834,2106,405489,405633,'All fees associatedA gambler plays a card with Card Actions, Elements and Exploits must be paid as soon as possible an Exploit by announcement, specifying the Gambler incurring the fee. For every Kudo not paid on time, card to be played, indicating any entities or values mentioned in an Indication of the Gambler commits card\'s Exploit, and noting any fees required to play the Class 1 Infraction of Debt Overdue, which may card. A card without an Exploit cannot be reported by any Player. played.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over all rules pertainingWhen a gambler plays a card, the following events automatically occur in order:
\n
\n(a) The card is transferred to Cards fees. the table.
\n
\n(b) One at a time in the order listed on the card, the gambler places any Impositions listed in the Exploit on the appropriate gamblers and performs each Feat listed in the Exploit.
\n
\n(c) If the card is still on the table, it is discarded.
\n
\nIf the card has any Fuses, then the first time the stated condition for a Fuse occurs, the gambler places the Imposition or performs the Feat associated with that Fuse as appropriate.
\n
\nThe Elements or Exploit of a card may modify any of the above events.
\n'),(38835,2107,405498,405604,'There exists a type of agreement known as a Contract. A Contract is an Entity. The content of a Contract is called its Regulations. The first Player to announce the creation of a Contract is its Executor and is known as the Notary of that Contract. Any other Player may decide to become part of a Contract by notifying that Contract\'s Notary. Players party to a Contract, including the Notary, are the Members of this Contract. A Member may leave a Contract at any time by notifying the Notary.
\n
\nA Contract may contain any number of Regulations. Regulations have the power to constrain the actions of Players in the same manner as the Rules. However, Regulations have power over only those Players that are Members of that Contract. All Members are required to abide by the Regulations, unless doing so would violate the Rules. Violation of this requirement is the Class 1 Crime of Insubordination. A Contract may include in its Regulations ways for Players to leave the Contract.
\n
\nRules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player shall ever involuntarily become a Member of a Contract.
\n
\n Contract becomes Silent, is deregistered, all Members of this Contract cease to be Members of this Contract and the Contract ceases to exist.
\n
\nOnly Members of a Contract may CFJ that a Member has violated that Contract. All Members of a Contract are automatically ineligible to Judge a CFJ that a Member has violated that Contract.
\n
\nAll Rules regulating agreements that are inconsistent with this Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
\n'),(38836,2109,405500,405725,''),(38837,2109,405725,405958,' of Contract binding agreement known as Agoran Contract. An Agoran Contract is a Contract between any two entities. An An Agoran Contract may only be created or amended by a Proposal and becomes effective when the Proposal takes effect. Unless
\n
\nUnless otherwise specified in the Rules or Regulations, All Rules, all Players are automatically Members of bound by Agoran Contracts and no Player may leave an Agoran Contract. Contract while remaining a Player. The Proposal process shall, prima facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and privileges with respect to agreements.
\n
\nAll Rules regulating Contracts that are inconsistent with this Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.
\n
\nThe ADoP is required to keep track of CotC\'s monthly report includes all Agoran Contracts.
\n'),(38838,2110,405519,405772,' the Speaker shall award the Patent Title of Champion to the first Player player to publicly note that condition. The Herald shall record that announce this Title was achieved "by paradox" in eir report. fact wins the game.
\n'),(38839,2110,405772,406233,'If an inquiry case on the legality possibility of an a rule-defined action cannot be determined with finality, or if by the permissibility of an action results in a Judge\'s best reasoning, judgement of UNDECIDABLE, and that judgement is not appealed within a week of eir Judgement, an action appears equally legal and illegal, week, then the first player to announce this fact initiator of the inquiry case wins the game. game if e is a player. This can only occur once per inquiry case.
\n'),(38840,2110,406233,406373,' a prior or hypothetical rule-defined action action, or the permissibility of an action a prior or hypothetical action, results in a judgement of UNDECIDABLE, and that the judgement is not appealed within a week, week (or is upheld via an appeal decision of AFFIRM), then the initiator of the inquiry case wins the game by paradox if e is a player. This can only occur once per inquiry case.
\n'),(38841,2110,406373,406532,'If an inquiry case onUpon a judicial finding that the possibility of a prior or hypothetical rule-defined action, or the permissibility legality of a prior rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical action, results in a judgement of UNDECIDABLE, hypothetical, but not arising from that case itself, and the judgement is not appealed within a week (or is upheld via an appeal decision of AFFIRM), then occurring after the initiator initiation of that case) is UNDECIDABLE, the inquiry case wins initiator satisfies the game by paradox if e is Winning Condition of Paradox.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a player. This can only occur once per inquiry case. reasonable attempt to resolve the paradox.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(38842,2110,406532,496688,'Upon a judicial finding thatA tortoise is an inquiry case on 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 for which the Winning Condition question of Paradox. veracity is UNDECIDABLE.
\n
\nCleanupUpon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks, the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt to resolve the paradox. paradox. The same person can not satisfy this Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(38843,2110,496688,496964,'A tortoise is an inquiry case on 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) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.
\n
\nUpon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks, the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.
\n
\n January 2008 disi.), 18 November 2008
\n'),(38844,2111,405527,405590,' are 300 200 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted that would increase the total number of Rules, the Proposer commits the Class 2 Infraction of Improper Rules Fattening, reportable by anyone.
\n'),(38845,2114,405548,405631,'A Cardbook document is a document, maintained cardbook if so designated by the Deckmastor, that is specifically defined in the Rules as being a Cardbook. rules. The Deckmastor must publish is the recordkeepor of cardbooks; eir monthly report shall include each cardbook as cardbook. As soon as possible after its contents change, and at least once a month. The contents of a cardbook changes, the Deckmastor shall publish that cardbook. A cardbook may only be changed as explicitly permitted by the Rules. rules.
\n
\n any Cardbook, cardbook, specifically layout, whitespace, and the order of definitions, as e sees fit.
\n
\nA class of card is considered defined if and only if cardbook can define a valid definition for that card class exists in a cardbook. A valid card definition defines a Class of Card cards by specifying a its Caption, a Frequency, zero or more one Exploits, and optionally its Elements, and zero or more Exploits. can define an Element by specifying its name and description. Neither classes of cards nor Elements may be otherwise defined.
\n
\n Caption shall be the name is a string of text, unique to a particular Class of Cards. No two Classes class of Cards shall have the same Caption. cards.
\n
\n The Frequency, which may have Frequency of a card is exactly one of the following values: Common, values Unique, Rare, Unique. If any other value is specified, the frequency shall be considered or Common, defaulting to be Unique. Unique if unspecified or incorrectly specified.
\n
\n A cardbook may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall have a name and card with a description. Any Card possessing the particular Element of that name shall behave behaves according to the description associated with of that Element. An Element not defined in a cardbook has no effect. Element.
\n
\n Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e clearly indicates the card whose Exploit e is performing and e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in that Exploit. Any reference to "you," "your" or a similar pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule or card definition says otherwise, a Card is automatically transferred to the Discard Pile immediately after being Played. may contain one or more Indications, Impositions, and Feats.
\n
\nAll Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each individual instance of(1) An Indication is a Card shall be considered requirement for the gambler playing the card to be a Copy of that Class of Card. select some entity or value.
\n
\nIf there are conflicts between(2) An Imposition is a card or element definition in a cardbook and the Rules, then the conflict shall be resolved as if the definition were contained in the text of requirement the Rule that defines gambler may impose upon another gambler by playing the particular cardbook. card.
\n
\nThis Rule has(3) A Feat is an action the gambler may perform by playing the card.
\n
\n(4) A Fuse is an Imposition or Feat that is not imposed or performed immediately, but rather when a stated condition occurs.
\n
\nA reference to "you" or "your" in any text on a card refers to the gambler holding the card unless it is on the table, and then refers to the gambler who played the card.
\n
\nThe cards of a given class are fungible. Each individual instance of a card shall be considered to be a copy of that class of card.
\n
\nIf there are conflicts between a card or element definition in a cardbook and the rules, then the conflict shall be resolved as if the definition were contained in the text of the rule that defines the particular cardbook. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would require a different method of resolving such conflicts.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any Rule rule describing the definition or interpretation of card classes and card elements.
\n'),(38846,2114,405631,405643,'A document is a cardbook if so designated by the rules. The Deckmastor is the recordkeepor of cardbooks; eir monthly report shall include each cardbook. As soon as possible after a cardbook changes, the Deckmastor shall publish that cardbook. A cardbook may only be changed as explicitly permitted by the rules.
\n
\nThe Deckmastor may change non-substantial properties of any cardbook, specifically layout, whitespace, and the order of definitions, as e sees fit.
\n
\n Element or Scoring Instruction by specifying its name and description. Neither classes of cards Elements, nor Elements Scoring Instructions may be otherwise defined.
\n
\n(a) The Caption is a string of text, unique to a particular class of cards.
\n
\n(b) The Frequency of a card is exactly one of the values Unique, Rare, or Common, defaulting to Unique if unspecified or incorrectly specified.
\n
\n(c) A card with a particular Element behaves according to the description of that Element.
\n
\n(d) An Exploit of a card may contain one or more Indications, Impositions, and Feats.
\n
\n(1) An Indication is a requirement for the gambler playing the card to select some entity or value.
\n
\n(2) An Imposition is a requirement the gambler may impose upon another gambler by playing the card.
\n
\n(3) A Feat is an action the gambler may perform by playing the card.
\n
\n(4) A Fuse is an Imposition or Feat that is not imposed or performed immediately, but rather when a stated condition occurs.
\n
\nA reference to "you" or "your" in any text on a card refers to the gambler holding the card unless it is on the table, and then refers to the gambler who played the card.
\n
\nThe cards of a given class are fungible. Each individual instance of a card shall be considered to be a copy of that class of card.
\n
\nIf there are conflicts between a card or element definition in a cardbook and the rules, then the conflict shall be resolved as if the definition were contained in the text of the rule that defines the particular cardbook. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would require a different method of resolving such conflicts.
\n
\nThis rule takes precedence over any rule describing the definition or interpretation of card classes and card elements.
\n'),(38847,2120,405647,405661,'When a gambler draws a card as specified by the Rules, e gains a Pending Draw.
\n
\nEncumbrance is a stuck switch for pending draws, with values Free and Heavy. Drawing a card is a synonym for gaining a pending draw with the indicated encumbrance.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a gambler draws a card, the Deckmastor shall satisfy the draw by dealing a card to the gambler with the pending draw, but only if the draw is Satisfiable. A draw is satisfiable unless defined otherwise.
\n
\nA heavy pending draw is not satisfiable as long as the gambler with the draw has a hand size equal to or greater than eir defined maximum hand size. If a gambler has both heavy and free pending draws, the Deckmastor must satisfy all satisfiable heavy draws before satisfying any free draws for that gambler.
\n
\nIfIf the Rules state that a gambler loses a pending draw, than that draw is considered satisfied without the dealing of a card, whether or not it is satisfiable. E shall first lose all free draws before losing any heavy draws. If e has no draws, the Deckmastor shall discard a random card from that gambler\'s hand. If e has no cards, then the deckmastor shall satisfy the next pending draw e gains without dealing a card.
\n
\nA satisfied draw is no longer pending.
\n'),(38848,2120,405661,405668,'WhenThe Pot is a gambler draws a card as specified by the Rules, e gains a Pending Draw. site.
\n
\nAsA player may cash in one or more of eir chips by transferring them to the Pot. As soon as possible after a gambler draws a card, the Deckmastor shall satisfy the draw by dealing a card to the gambler with the pending draw, but only if the draw is Satisfiable. A draw is satisfiable unless defined otherwise.
\n
\nIf the Rules state that a gambler loses a pending draw, than that draw is considered satisfied without the dealing of a card, whether or not it is satisfiable. If e has no draws, does so, the Deckmastor shall discard deal em a random card from that gambler\'s hand. If e has no cards, then the deckmastor shall satisfy the next pending draw e gains without dealing a card.
\n
\nA satisfied draw is no longer pending. for each non-forfeited chip.
\n'),(38849,2120,405668,405681,'The Pot is a site.
\n
\nACashing in one or more chips is synonymous with transferring them to the Pot. A player may cash in one or more of eir chips by transferring them to the Pot. announcement. As soon as possible after e does so, the Deckmastor shall deal em a card for each non-forfeited chip. chip cashed in.
\n'),(38850,2123,405670,405682,' X chips. chips and indicating the fee to be paid. These chips are forfeited.
\n'),(38851,2124,405662,405696,' action with M supporters by announcement if all of the following are true:
\n
\n(a) e has published eir intent to perform the action, unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at least four days and without N objections, as long as M is greater no more than N. fourteen days before attempting to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn) support for the intended action since intent was published; and
\n
\n(c) more players have announced (and not withdrawn) support than have announced (and not withdrawn) objections to the action since the intent was published.
\n'),(38852,2124,405696,405774,'If the Rules specify that anAn entity that may perform an action with Agoran Consent, then the entity may perform the action Consent can do so by announcement if all of the following are true:
\n
\n(a) e has published eir intent to perform the action, unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at least four days and no more than fourteen days before attempting to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn) support for the intended action since intent was published; and
\n
\n(c) more players have announced (and not withdrawn) support than have announced (and not withdrawn) objections to the action since the intent was published.
\n'),(38853,2124,405774,405876,'An entity that may perform an action with Agoran Consent can do so by announcement if all of the following are true:
\n
\n(a) e has published eir intent to perform the action, unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at least four days and no more than fourteen days before attempting to perform the action;
\n
\n(b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn) support for the intended action since intent was published; and
\n
\n more other players have announced (and not withdrawn) support than have announced (and not withdrawn) objections to the action since the intent was published.
\n'),(38854,2124,405876,406125,'An entity that may perform an action with Agoran Consent can do so by announcement if all of theThe following methods of dependent actions are true: defined:
\n
\n(a) e has published eir intent to perform With N Supporters. For this method, the action, unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at least four days and no more than fourteen days before attempting to perform the action; support index is N. "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
\n
\n(b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn) support for Without N Objections. For this method, the intended action since intent was published; and objection index is N. "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection".
\n
\n(c) more other players have announced (and not withdrawn) support than have announced (and not withdrawn) objections to With N Agoran Consent. For this method, the action since the intent was published. majority index is N. "With Agoran Consent" is synonymous with "With 1/2 Agoran Consent".
\n'),(38855,2124,406125,432215,'The following methods of dependent actions are defined:
\n
\n is N. "With N+1. "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter".
\n
\n(b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection index is N. "Without Objection" is synonymous with "Without 1 Objection".
\n
\n(c) With N Agoran Consent. For this method, the majority index is N. "With Agoran Consent" is synonymous with "With 1/2 Agoran Consent".
\n'),(38856,2124,432215,432333,'The following methodsA Supporter of a dependent actions are defined: action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action.
\n
\n(a) With N Supporters. For this method,The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players to support index is N+1. "With Support" is synonymous with "With 1 Supporter". or object to that specific action.
\n
\n(b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection indexAgora is N. "Without Objection" is synonymous Satisfied with "Without 1 Objection". an intent to perform a specific action if and only if:
\n
\n(c) With(1) the action is to be performed Without N Agoran Consent. For this method, Objections, and it has fewer than N objectors;
\n
\n(2) the majority index action is N. "With Agoran Consent" to be performed With N supporters, and it has N or more supporters; or
\n
\n(3) the action is synonymous to be performed with "With 1/2 N Agoran Consent". Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
\n'),(38857,2124,432333,496716,' player (or other person explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action.
\n
\nThe Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\nAgora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if:
\n
\n(1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has fewer than N objectors;
\n
\n(2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has N or more supporters; or
\n
\n(3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
\n'),(38858,2124,496716,496898,'A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a dependent action is a first-class player (or other person explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action.
\n
\n support nor it, but CAN generally object to it. it (withdrawal of intent is equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\nAgora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if:
\n
\n(1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has fewer than N objectors;
\n
\n(2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has N or more supporters; or
\n
\n(3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
\n
\nFebruary 2008
\n'),(38859,2124,496898,497311,'A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a dependent action is a first-class player (or other person explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action.
\n
\nThe Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\nAgora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if:
\n
\n(1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and then it has fewer than N objectors;
\n
\n(2) if the action is to be performed With N supporters, and then it has N or more supporters; or and
\n
\n(3) if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
\n
\nFebruary 2008
\n'),(38860,2124,497311,497368,'A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a dependent action is a first-class player (or other person explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action.
\n
\nThe Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action.
\n
\nAgora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if:
\n
\n(1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors;
\n
\n(2) if the action is to be performed With N supporters, then it has N or more supporters; and
\n
\n(3) if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
\n
\nFor the purposes of any determination defined by this rule, objections shall always be considered withdrawn if they were made prior to the announcement of intent to perform the action.
\n
\nFebruary 2008
\n'),(38861,2125,405691,432183,'An action is regulated if:
\n
\n(a) the action is prohibited;
\n
\n(b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied, then some player is permitted to perform the action;
\n
\n a recordkeepor; recordkeepor; or
\n
\n by players; or
\n
\n(e) the courts have held that the action is regulated, and this finding has not been overturned. players.
\n'),(38862,2125,432183,496682,'An action is regulated if:
\n
\n(a) the actiona) It is prohibited; IMPOSSIBLE.
\n
\n(b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied, then some playerb) It is permitted to perform the action; ILLEGAL.
\n
\n(c) thec) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to CANNOT be a recordkeepor; or performed except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\n(d) thed) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be performed except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\ne) It would, as part of its effect, make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications modify information for which some player is required to the rules be a recordkeepor. Such an action CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by any combinations of actions the rules.
\n
\nf) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and has not been superseded by players. subsequent legislation.
\n'),(38863,2125,496682,496892,' regulated if and only if:
\n
\na) It is IMPOSSIBLE.
\n
\nb) It is ILLEGAL.
\n
\nc) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be performed except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\nd) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be performed except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\ne) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\nf) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.
\n'),(38864,2125,496892,497339,'AnA regulated action is regulated if and only if: an action satisfying any of the following:
\n
\na) It is IMPOSSIBLE.
\n
\nb) It is ILLEGAL.
\n
\nc) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be performed except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\nd) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be performed except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\ne) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the rules.
\n
\nf) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.
\n'),(38865,2126,405744,405742,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limitsA ballot option (vote) on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is an Agoran decision may be submitted conditionally, and the recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form truth or falsity of property the condition and cannot be traded. VCs can thus the selected option will be affected only determined as described in this rule. it exists at the end of the voting period.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.
\n
\nWhen a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index,The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified if and each co-author of only if the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit truth or falsity of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nThe Promotor may accept reasonable synonyms for "expend" (such as "pay" specified condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity or "use") as valid actions under this rule. paradox, from information published within the voting period.
\n'),(38866,2126,405742,405751,'A ballot option (vote)Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on an Agoran decision may be submitted conditionally, and ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the truth or falsity recordkeepor of the condition VCs. VCs are not any form of property and thus the selected option will cannot be traded. VCs can be determined affected only as it exists at the end of the voting period. described in this rule.
\n
\nThe option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified ifWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.
\n
\nWhen a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and only if each co-author of the truth or falsity proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each quarter, for each office, the specified condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity or paradox, from information published within player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that quarter gains one VC.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting period. limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nThe Promotor may accept reasonable synonyms for "expend" (such as "pay" or "use") as valid actions under this rule.
\n'),(38867,2126,405751,405782,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.
\n
\nWhen a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each quarter, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that quarter gains one VC.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nThe Promotor may accept reasonable synonyms for "expend" (such as "pay" or "use") as valid actionsChanges to voting limits under this rule. rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38868,2126,405782,405847,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.
\n
\nWhen a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\n each quarter, month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that quarter month gains one VC. two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\n is overturned overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38869,2126,405847,405851,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\n to zero. zero and eir voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.
\n
\nWhen a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38870,2126,405851,497201,'Voting Credits (VCs) areUpon a measure of each win announcement that a specified player\'s ability to affect voting limits limit on an ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is decision initiated at all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is that time would exceed the recordkeepor combined voting limits of VCs. VCs are not any form all other players on that decision, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule. Clout.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subjectCleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to modification by other rules. its default value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.
\n
\nWhen a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.16 January 2008 OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 16 January 2008 2008
\n'),(38871,2126,497201,405903,'UponVoting Credits (VCs) are a win announcement that a specified measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limit limits on an ordinary decision initiated proposals. A player\'s VC is at that time would exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on that decision, the specified player satisfies times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the Winning Condition recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of Clout. property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder of this rule notwithstanding) duringWhen one or more players win the same month. game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\n16 January 2008 OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 16 January 2008 2008When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.
\n
\nWhen an Ordinary proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38872,2126,405903,405972,' integer. The Promotor is the recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.
\n
\nWhen an Ordinary proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38873,2126,405972,406001,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.
\n
\n is adopted, adopted and its proposer is not the proposer of any Ordinary proposal previously adopted in the same week, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38874,2126,406001,406005,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.
\n
\n Ordinary Interested proposal is adopted and its proposer is not the proposer of any Ordinary proposal previously adopted in the same week, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38875,2126,406005,406007,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.
\n
\n Ordinary Interested proposal previously adopted in the same week, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one VC, if e has any.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nA player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.
\n
\nIf a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.
\n
\nChanges to voting limits under this rule take effect at the beginning of the next week.
\n'),(38876,2126,406007,406036,' proposals. A player\'s VC is at all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of property and cannot be traded. VCs can CANNOT be affected only except as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen one a player registers or more players win the game, deregisters, e loses all players\' voting limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to modification by other rules. eir VCs.
\n
\nWhen a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir one or more players win the game, each player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals is set reset to one. its default value.
\n
\nWhen an Ordinary Interested proposal is adopted and its proposer isEach VC has a color (Gray if not the proposer otherwise specified). If a player loses a color of any Ordinary Interested proposal previously adopted in the same week, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author VC that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the proposal gains one VC. loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nAt the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has performed poorly in eir duties.VCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\nA player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or whoa) When an ordinary interested proposal is recused for failing adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC, if Red VC (unless e has any. gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
\n
\nAb) At the end of each month, for each office, the player may expend (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two VCs to increase Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces within a week after the end of the month that the officer performed eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one. duties poorly or not at all.
\n
\nAc) A player may expend who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC to increase any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one. Blue VC.
\n
\nA playerVCs may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail. be lost as follows:
\n
\nIfa) When a player attempts to expend more VCs proposal\'s voting index is less than e currently has, the action fails, and the VCs are not expended. half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nChangesb) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified). All changes to voting limits under this rule take effect are applied at the beginning end of the next week. week, in the order the VCs were spent, after which any fractional voting limits are rounded to the nearest integer (nearest odd integer if the fractional part is 0.5).
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by ten percent.
\n'),(38877,2126,406036,406049,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.
\n
\nWhenThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals VVLOP is reset set to its default value. eir BVLOP.
\n
\nEach VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces within a week after the end of the month that the officer performed eir duties poorly or not at all.
\n
\nc) A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n is specified). All changes to voting limits are applied at the end of the week, in the order the VCs were spent, after which any fractional voting limits are rounded to the nearest integer (nearest odd integer if the fractional part is 0.5). specified):
\n
\n player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals VVLOP by one.
\n
\n own voting limit on ordinary proposals VVLOP by one.
\n
\n player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\n player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals VVLOP by ten percent.
\n'),(38878,2126,406049,406069,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nEach VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces within a week after the end of the month that the officer performed eir duties poorly or not at all.
\n
\n who submits assigns a judgement during eir Deliberation Period to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.
\n
\n player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for failing to from a judicial case because a judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge within eir Deliberation Period, in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n'),(38879,2126,406069,406089,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nEach VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces within a week after the end of the month that the officer performed eir duties poorly or not at all.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n'),(38880,2126,406089,406119,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described in this rule.
\n
\nWhen a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nEach VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
\n
\n each office, office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs, VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless the Speaker publicly announces within a week after the end of the that month that the officer that player performed eir that office\'s duties poorly or not at all.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n'),(38881,2126,406119,406130,' are a measure of each player\'s ability items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this rule. condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nWhenEach VC has a color. If a player registers or deregisters, is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses all a VC of eir VCs. Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nEach VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless the Speaker announces within a week after the end of that month that that player performed that office\'s duties poorly or not at all.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38882,2126,406130,406148,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week).
\n
\n unless the Speaker announces within a week after the end of that month another person deputised for that office while that player performed held that office\'s duties poorly or not at all. office during that month.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by At the Speaker, e end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38883,2126,406148,406150,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\n an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index (unless index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained VCs in this way earlier in the same week), week (down to a minimum of zero), and each co-author of coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC (unless unless e gained VCs a VC in this way earlier in the same week). week.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38884,2126,406150,406195,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n case because a judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38885,2126,406195,406203,' except as described by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38886,2126,406203,406204,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs may be gained as follows:
\n
\na) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\nc) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:
\n
\na) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38887,2126,406204,406205,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs may be are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\na)(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office with(-R) When a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month. Red VC.
\n
\nc) A(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within held that office for the time limit when first obliged to majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Blue VC. Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\nVCs may be lost as follows:(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\na) When(+B) A player who assigns a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Red Blue VC.
\n
\nb) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\nc)(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38888,2126,406205,406206,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+B) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38889,2126,406206,406207,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38890,2126,406207,406208,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) A When a player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within the a time limit when first obliged to limit, e gains one Blue blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38891,2126,406208,406209,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38892,2126,406209,406210,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38893,2126,406210,406211,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38894,2126,406211,406218,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n the integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one.
\n
\nb) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one.
\n
\nc) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38895,2126,406218,406234,'Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs are lost or never gained.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color possessed by each player.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\n spend two N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by one. N, where N >= 1.
\n
\n spend three N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by one. N, where N >= 1.
\n
\n spend two N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by one N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\n spend three N+2 VCs of different colors to decrease multiply another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent. (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38896,2126,406234,406238,' are items a class of fixed assets that can be possessed by players and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending Ownership of VCs are lost or never gained. is restricted to players.
\n
\n color. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe assessor\'s report includes Assessor is the number recordkeepor of VCs of each color possessed by each player. VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38897,2126,406238,406239,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has a color. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen one or more players a game win the game, occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38898,2126,406239,406245,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\n has a exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38899,2126,406245,406249,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38900,2126,406249,406308,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38901,2126,406308,406316,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38902,2126,406316,406338,' proposals. VCs CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal Changes to the power of this rule. Ownership VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38903,2126,406338,406351,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n Red VC. VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38904,2126,406351,406352,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n orange VC. VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38905,2126,406352,406416,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n votes FOR, FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for 100 days and has never been a player before that period, e gains one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38906,2126,406416,406417,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n for 100 days at least three months and has never been a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e gains and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38907,2126,406417,406430,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n coauthor named in of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months and has never been a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n'),(38908,2126,406430,406435,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months and has never been a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nVC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the following officers:
\n
\nAssessor - Red, Orange IADoP - Green, Cyan CotC - Blue, Black Registrar - White Herald - Violet, Indigo Scorekeepor - Yellow Accountor - all others
\n'),(38909,2126,406435,406440,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months and has never been a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\n N+1 VCs VCs, each of different colors a color distinct from the rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\n N+2 VCs VCs, each of different colors a color distinct from the rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\n N+1 VCs VCs, each of different colors a color distinct from the rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\n N+2 VCs VCs, each of different colors a color distinct from the rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nVC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the following officers:
\n
\nAssessor - Red, Orange IADoP - Green, Cyan CotC - Blue, Black Registrar - White Herald - Violet, Indigo Scorekeepor - Yellow Accountor - all others
\n'),(38910,2126,406440,406442,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months and has never been a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n player wins is awarded the game, Patent Title Champion, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\n a game win occurs, player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nVC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the following officers:
\n
\nAssessor - Red, Orange IADoP - Green, Cyan CotC - Blue, Black Registrar - White Herald - Violet, Indigo Scorekeepor - Yellow Accountor - all others
\n'),(38911,2126,406442,406489,''),(38912,2126,406489,406500,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n another first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nVC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the following officers:
\n
\nAssessor - Red, Orange IADoP - Green, Cyan CotC - Blue, Black Registrar - White Herald - Violet, Indigo Scorekeepor - Yellow Accountor - all others
\n'),(38913,2126,406500,406501,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months and has never been a player before that period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\n by N (to N, to a minimum of zero). zero, where N >= 1.
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nVC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the following officers:
\n
\nAssessor - Red, Orange IADoP - Green, Cyan CotC - Blue, Black Registrar - White Herald - Violet, Indigo Scorekeepor - Yellow Accountor - all others
\n'),(38914,2126,406501,406506,'Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).
\n
\nThe Assessor Accountor is the recordkeepor of VCs.
\n
\nVCs are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player who has held that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for the same office in the same month.
\n
\n(+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one blue VC.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.
\n
\n(+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.
\n
\n(-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months and has never been a player before that period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N, to a minimum of zero, where N >= 1.
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.
\n
\nVC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the following officers:
\n
\nAssessor - Red, Orange IADoP - Green, Cyan CotC - Blue, Black Registrar - White Herald - Violet, Indigo Scorekeepor - Yellow Accountor - all others
\n'),(38915,2126,406506,406550,'Voting Credits (VCs)Ribbons are a class of fixed assets that can be used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. assets. Changes to VC Ribbon holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs Ribbons is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach VC Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC Ribbon is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip). currency.
\n
\nThe Accountor Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of VCs. Ribbons.
\n
\nVCsRibbons are gained and lost as follows: follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:
\n
\n is adopted, adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week. Ribbon.
\n
\n(-R)(+O) When a proposal\'s voting index an interested proposal is less than half its adoption index, adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week. gains an Orange Ribbon.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains(+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one orange VC office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon, unless e gained violated a VC in this way earlier in the same week. requirement to submit a report within a time limit.
\n
\n(-O)(+C) When a player deputises for an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless office, e lost gains a VC in this way earlier in the same week. Cyan Ribbon.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office with(+B) When a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has assigns a weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, e gains a monthly report), Blue Ribbon, unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during e violated a requirement to submit that month. judgement within a time limit.
\n
\n(-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each(+K) When a player who has held assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit that office during that month, if another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month then that player loses one Green VC. judgement within a time limit.
\n
\n(+C)(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player deputises for an office the first time, e gains one cyan VC, unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner a White Ribbon. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for the same office 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 the same month. this fashion before), that player gains a White Ribbon.
\n
\n(+B) When(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one blue VC. a Magenta Ribbon.
\n
\n(-B) A player who is recused from(+U) When a judicial case with cause loses one Blue VC. A player who is awarded the prior judge in Patent Title Champion, e gains an appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC. Ultraviolet Ribbon.
\n
\n(+K)(+V) When a player assigns is awarded a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit that judgement within Patent Title, e gains a time limit, Violet Ribbon, unless e gains one black VC. a different Ribbon for the award.
\n
\n(-K) In(+I) When a criminal case, when player is awarded a sentence becomes active for the first time the defendant loses one black VC. degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a first-class person has been a player continuously(+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded points to at least three months and has never been a player before different contestants during that period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named month, the contestmaster gains a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player each gain one white VC. Yellow Ribbon.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e previously gained a VC in this manner during the same birthday.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.
\n
\n(+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same month.
\n
\n(-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.
\n
\n(+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this rule then the number is two.
\n
\n(-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to the nearest integer.
\n
\n(+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 one Yellow VC.
\n
\nVCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nb) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
\n
\nc) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N, to a minimum of zero, where N >= 1.
\n
\nd) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
\n
\ne) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another player gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nz) IfIf this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for VCs, Ribbons, then a player may spend CAN destroy one VC Ribbon of each such color to win the game.
\n
\nWhen a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each player\'s VVLOP is set to in eir BVLOP.
\n
\nVC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by possession to satisfy the following officers:
\n
\nAssessor - Red, Orange IADoP - Green, Cyan CotC - Blue, Black Registrar - White Herald - Violet, Indigo Scorekeepor - Yellow Accountor - all others Winning Condition of Renaissance.
\n'),(38916,2126,406550,432310,'RibbonsNotes are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings are secured. Ownership of Ribbons Notes is restricted to players. players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Ribbon Note has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of spectral proximity. Each color of Ribbon Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Tailor Conductor is a low-priority an office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons. Notes.
\n
\nRibbonsNotes are gained as follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained: follows:
\n
\n(+R) When an(1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the number of eir interested proposal is proposals that were adopted during that week, and changes at least one rule let Y be the number of eir interested quorate proposals that were rejected during that week with Power VI >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon. AI/2:
\n
\n(+O) When(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 interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer Ab Note. (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an Orange Ribbon. A Note.
\n
\n(+G) At(2) (E) At the end of each month, week, each player who held published at least one office continuously weekly report during that month week gains a Green Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit a report within a time limit. an E Note.
\n
\n(+C) When a(Eb) At the end of each month, each player deputises for an office, e who published at least one monthly report during that month gains a Cyan Ribbon. an Eb Note.
\n
\n(+B) When a(3) (D) At the end of each week, each player assigns a who published at least one on-time judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit during that judgement within week gains a time limit. D Note.
\n
\n(+K) When a(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit who gained at least one Point during that judgement within week gains a time limit. C Note.
\n
\n(+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for(C#) At the first time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded 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), one Point during that player week gains a White Ribbon. C# Note.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(+U) When a(1) A player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains an Ultraviolet Ribbon. CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(+V) When a(2) A player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for CAN spend five Notes forming the award. start of a major scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(+I) When a(3) A player is awarded CAN spend three Notes forming a degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon. minor chord to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(+Y) At the end(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of each month, for each contest that awarded points the same pitch to at least three different contestants during make another player gain one Note of that month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon. pitch.
\n
\nIf this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then(5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession spend Notes forming the melody "Happy Birthday" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. Musicianship, unless another player has already done so during that Birthday.
\n'),(38917,2126,432310,432385,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n who published completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one weekly report office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n who published completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one monthly report office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(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.
\n'),(38918,2126,432385,432407,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n'),(38919,2126,432407,432429,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n player\'s VVLOP VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n own VVLOP VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n player\'s VVLOP VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n'),(38920,2126,432429,432430,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\n(5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note.
\n
\n(Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n(2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n'),(38921,2126,432430,432433,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nNotesKey is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e has already done so during the current month.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows: follows, except that the pitch actually gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\n(5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note.
\n
\n(Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n(2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.
\n
\n(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n'),(38922,2126,432433,496884,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nKey is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e has already done so during the current month.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\n(5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note.
\n
\n(Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n another non-Alpha player\'s VVLOD caste by 1. 1 level.
\n
\n A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own VVLOD caste by 1. 1 level.
\n
\n another non-Savage player\'s VVLOD caste by 1. 1 level.
\n
\n A non-Savage player CAN spend two five Notes of forming the same pitch to make another player gain one Note start of that pitch. a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a A player CAN spend two Notes forming of the melody "Happy Birthday" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or a translation thereof) same pitch to satisfy the Winning Condition of Musicianship, unless make another player has already done so during gain one Note of that Birthday. pitch.
\n
\n(6) A During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend one Note Notes forming the melody "Happy Birthday" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or a translation thereof) to increase satisfy the Winning Condition of Musicianship, unless another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1. player has already done so during that Birthday.
\n
\n spend two Notes one Note to increase eir another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent. spent.
\n
\nThe maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n
\n
\n
\n2007 2007 2008
\n'),(38923,2126,496884,496810,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nKey is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e has already done so during the current month.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\n(5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note.
\n
\n(Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(6) 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.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n
\nThe maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n
\n
\n
\n2007 2007 2008
\n'),(38924,2126,496810,496916,' players. Changes If changes to Note holdings caste are secured. secured, then changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nKey is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e has already done so during the current month.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\n(5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note.
\n
\n(Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(6) 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.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n
\nThe maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n
\n
\n
\n2007 2007 2008
\n'),(38925,2126,496916,497202,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nKey is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e has already done so during the current month.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n gains a number of E Notes equal to the during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(3) (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at least one on-time judgement during that week gains a least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D Note.
\n
\n(4) (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\n(5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note.
\n
\n(Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(6) 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.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n
\nThe maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n
\n
\n
\n2007 2007 2008
\n'),(38926,2126,497202,497432,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nKey is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e has already done so during the current month.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:
\n
\n(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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n the during that week gains an E Note. (Eb) highest interest index among all such offices.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to during that month gains an Eb Note. (3) the highest interest index among all such offices.
\n
\n(3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at least one on-time judgement during that week gains a least one on-time judgement during that week gains a number of D Note. (4) Notes equal to the highest interest index among all such cases.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\n(5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note.
\n
\n(Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.
\n
\n(5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(6) 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.
\n
\n(7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1.
\n
\n(9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent.
\n
\nThe maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.
\n
\ncannot be by a negative number.]
\n
\n
\n
\n 2007 2008 2008 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38927,2127,432227,432314,'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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nCasting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that decision.
\n
\nCasting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; SUPPORT and OBJECT are opposites; PRESENT is its own opposite.
\n'),(38928,2127,432314,496731,'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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nCasting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that decision.
\n
\n opposites; SUPPORT and OBJECT are opposites; PRESENT is its own opposite.
\n'),(38929,2127,496731,496895,'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.
\n
\n information published reasonably available within the voting period.
\n
\nCasting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that decision.
\n
\nCasting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own opposite.
\n'),(38930,2129,405749,405968,'When the Herald is ordered to place someone in the Chokey, e shall publically award em the patent title "In the Chokey".
\n
\n the revokation. revocation. If a sentencing order is executed against a defendant who already holds this title, the length of time of the new sentencing order shall be added to the time left on any previous ones.
\n
\nA person is considered to be In Disgrace while in the Chokey, between the execution and satisfaction of any sentencing orders binding em, or if deregistered for lawlessness. A person who leaves the game in disgrace shall be awarded the Patent Title Fugitive by the Herald. A Player may revoke the title Fugitive from emself as long as e is no longer in Disgrace. A non-player may have this title revoked by Agoran Consent.
\n
\nThe rules may further specify actions prohibited to persons in particular types of disgrace.
\n
\nThe Herald is encouraged to publish lists of those in disgrace separate from patent titles of honor, to indicate the disgrace.
\n'),(38931,2130,405775,405908,'A player may become active or inactive by announcement.
\n
\nA player may, without objection, make another player inactive.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n'),(38932,2130,405908,405909,'A player may become active or inactive by announcement.
\n
\nA player may, without objection, make another player inactive.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this status last changed.
\n'),(38933,2130,405909,405910,'A player may become active or inactive by announcement.
\n
\nA player may, without objection, make another player inactive.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this status last changed.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n'),(38934,2130,405910,405911,'A player may become active or inactive by announcement.
\n
\nA player may, without objection, make another player inactive.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this status last changed.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this status last changed.
\n'),(38935,2130,405911,405928,'A player may become active or inactive by announcement.
\n
\nA player may, without objection, make another player inactive.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this status last changed.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the new player to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this status last changed.
\n'),(38936,2130,405928,406113,'AActivity is a player may become active or inactive switch with values Active (default) and Inactive, tracked by announcement. the Registrar.
\n
\n player may, without objection, make another player inactive. may flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold" is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.
\n
\nRegistration as a player causes the newA player may flip another player\'s activity to become active. All non-players are inactive.
\n
\nThe Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this status last changed. Inactive without objection.
\n'),(38937,2130,406113,406139,' the Registrar. Registrar. The Registrar\'s report includes the date on which each player\'s activity last changed.
\n
\nA player may flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold" is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.
\n
\nA player may flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without objection.
\n'),(38938,2130,406139,406297,'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 player\'s activity last changed.
\n
\n player may CAN flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold" is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.
\n
\n player may CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without objection.
\n
\nA player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three months CAN be deregistered by any other player without objection.
\n'),(38939,2130,406297,496702,' each non-Active player\'s activity last changed.
\n
\nA player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold" is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.
\n
\nA player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without objection.
\n
\nA player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three months CAN be deregistered by any other player without objection.
\n'),(38940,2130,496702,497470,'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.
\n
\nA player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold" is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.
\n
\nA player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without objection.
\n
\n without objection. objection. This is a means of honorable deregistration.
\n'),(38941,2130,497470,496954,'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.
\n
\nA player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold" is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.
\n
\nA player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without objection.
\n
\n without objection. This is a means of honorable deregistration. objection.
\n'),(38942,2132,405779,405827,' CFJ made submitted by a person who has previously made submitted five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts may dismiss can, by announcement, Refuse an Excess CFJ by announcement. that has not had any judge assigned to it. Refusal of an Excess CFJ causes it to cease to be a CFJ.
\n'),(38943,2134,405825,406263,' voting power limit on ordinary proposals equal to or greater than the total voting power limit on ordinary proposals of all other players combined, that player wins the game upon any player announcing the fact.
\n'),(38944,2134,406263,406445,'IfUpon a single player has correct announcement that a voting limit on ordinary proposals equal to or single player\'s EVLOP is greater than the total voting limit on ordinary proposals combined EVLOP of all other players combined, players, that player wins the game upon any player announcing the fact. game.
\n'),(38945,2134,406445,406533,' a correct win announcement that a single specified player\'s EVLOP is greater than voting limit on an ordinary proposal distributed at that time would exceed the combined EVLOP voting limits of all other players, players on that proposal, the specified player wins satisfies the game. Winning Condition of Clout.
\n
\nCleanup 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.
\n
\n16 January 2008 OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 16 January 2008
\n'),(38946,2134,406533,496745,' ordinary proposal distributed decision initiated at that time would exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on that proposal, decision, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.
\n
\n player\'s VVLOP VVLOD is set to eir BVLOP, BVLOD, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that each player\'s EVLOP EVLOD is set based on eir VVLOP. VVLOD.
\n
\n16 January 2008 OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 16 January 2008
\n'),(38947,2134,496745,497270,'Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on that decision, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.
\n
\n player\'s VVLOD caste is set to eir BVLOD, its default value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder of this rule notwithstanding) until after during the next time that each player\'s EVLOD is set based on eir VVLOD. same month.
\n
\n January 2008 2008
\n'),(38948,2134,497270,496809,'Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on that decision, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.
\n
\n January 2008 2008
\n'),(38949,2135,405826,405976,'Every month the Herald 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 Herald 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 Herald may add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.
\n
\nThe Herald is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other suitable locations.
\n'),(38950,2135,405976,496783,' the Herald ambassador shall update the page about Agora on the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is operational. This This page, when updated, is to include a list of the current players. In updating the page the Herald 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 Herald ambassador may add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.
\n
\nThe Herald ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other suitable locations.
\n'),(38951,2136,405828,405902,'A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\nPoints are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number of points possessed by a player is eir score. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.
\n
\n may win the game by announcing announce this fact. Upon such an announcement, each If this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:
\n
\n1. The announcing player wins the game. 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38952,2136,405902,406015,'A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\n eir score. score, which is always a real number, and scores are not categorically prevented from being any particular real number. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:
\n
\n1. The announcing player wins the game. 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38953,2136,406015,406016,'A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\n always a an algebraic real number, and scores are not categorically prevented from being any particular algebraic real number. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:
\n
\n1. The announcing player wins the game. 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38954,2136,406016,406017,'A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\n always an algebraic real a rational number, and scores are not categorically prevented from being any particular algebraic real rational number. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:
\n
\n1. The announcing player wins the game. 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38955,2136,406017,406034,'A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\n always a rational number, and scores are not categorically prevented from being any particular rational number. an integer. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:
\n
\n1. The announcing player wins the game. 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38956,2136,406034,406018,''),(38957,2136,406018,406038,'A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other partiesPoints are its contestants. a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number of points possessed by a player is eir score.
\n
\nPoints are a measure of aEach player\'s contentiousness. The number of points possessed by a player is eir score, which score is always an integer. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero. Points can only be awarded in integer amounts.
\n
\nA contestmaster may awardWhen a total of up to 10 points per month to one player registers or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month. deregisters, eir score becomes zero.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If this announcement contest is correct, then the following events happen: an agreement that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\n1.The Scorekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of scores and contests. The announcing Scorekeepor\'s report includes each player\'s score.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 3 days of the previous week.
\n
\nA player wins with 100 or more points may win the game. 2. Each game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38958,2136,406038,406215,' a measure class of a player\'s contentiousness. The number fixed assets. Ownership of points possessed by a player is eir score. restricted to players.
\n
\nEach player\'s score is an integer. Points can only be awarded in integer amounts.
\n
\nWhenPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player registers or deregisters, is eir score becomes zero. score.
\n
\nA contest is an agreement that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\n an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of scores office, and contests. The Scorekeepor\'s report includes each player\'s score. the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 3 days of the previous week.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38959,2136,406215,406231,'Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\nA contest is an agreement that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\n e was is contestmaster of a different contest for simultaneously or has been at least 3 days of any time during the previous week. preceding span of seven days.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38960,2136,406231,406266,'Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\n that
\n
\n(a) identifies itself as such, and a contest,
\n
\n(b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; contestmaster,
\n
\n(c) allows any First-class player to become a party,
\n
\n(d) is published before any contestants become a party to it, and
\n
\n(e) is fair to all other contestants.
\n
\nAll parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are its contestants.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been at any time during the preceding span of seven days.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38961,2136,406266,406375,'Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\nA contest is an agreement that
\n
\n(a) identifies itself as a contest,
\n
\n(b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,
\n
\n(c) allows any First-class player to become a party,
\n
\n is public, and is published before any contestants become a party to it, and
\n
\n(e) is fair to all contestants.
\n
\nAll parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are its contestants.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been at any time during the preceding span of seven days.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38962,2136,406375,406379,'Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\n an agreement contract that
\n
\n(a) identifies itself as a contest,
\n
\n(b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,
\n
\n(c) allows any First-class player to become a party,
\n
\n(d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a party to it, and
\n
\n(e) is fair to all contestants.
\n
\n the agreement contract who are not the contestmaster are its contestants.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been at any time during the preceding span of seven days.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38963,2136,406379,406380,'Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\nA contest is an contract that
\n
\n(a) identifies itself as a contest,
\n
\n(b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,
\n
\n(c) allows any First-class player to become a party,
\n
\n(d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a party to it, and
\n
\n is fair to all contestants. a dependent contract.
\n
\nAll parties to the contract who are not the contestmaster are its contestants.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nA contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been at any time during the preceding span of seven days.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'),(38964,2136,406380,406385,'Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\nA contest is an contract that
\n
\n(a) identifies itself as a contest,
\n
\n(b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,
\n
\n(c) allows any First-class player to become a party,
\n
\n(d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a party to it, and
\n
\n(e) is a dependent contract.
\n
\nAll parties to the contract who are not the contestmaster are its contestants.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nAFor each contest which has been a contest for at least a week, and has as its contestmaster a first-class person who has been contestmaster of that contest for the entire past week and has not been the contestmaster of any other contest during the past week, the contestmaster may CAN award a total of up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been at any time during the preceding span of seven days. contest.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero.
\n'); INSERT INTO `diffs` VALUES (38965,2136,406385,406419,'Points areA first-class player who is a class member of fixed assets. Ownership 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 points another contest. Another first-class player who is restricted to players. 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.
\n
\nPoints areAny player may make a currency. The number of points owned by contest cease to be a player is eir score. 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.
\n
\nA contest is an contract that
\n
\n(a) identifies itself as a contest,
\n
\n(b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,
\n
\n(c) allows any First-class player to becomeThe total number of points a party,
\n
\n(d) is public, and is published before any contestants become Contest MAY award in a party to it, and
\n
\n(e) given week is a dependent contract.
\n
\nAll parties equal to 5 times the contract who are not the contestmaster are its contestants.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor number of points.
\n
\nFor each contest which has been a contest for at least a week, and has as its contestmaster a first-class person who has been contestmaster of members that contest for the entire past week and has not been the contestmaster of any other contest during the past week, the contestmaster CAN award a total of are first- class players. Points up to 10 points per week to one or more contestants as permitted this total CAN be awarded by the contest.
\n
\nA player with 100 or more points may win the game contestmaster to other members by announcing this fact. Upon such an public announcement, each player\'s score is set to zero. and MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.
\n'),(38966,2136,406419,406466,'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.
\n
\nAnyThe minimum number of parties for a contest is one. Any player may make a contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections. Players Players SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a contest based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38967,2136,406466,406543,'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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38968,2136,406543,432307,'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.
\n
\nThe minimum number of parties for aA contest is one. requires at least one party. Any player may make a contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections. Players Players SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a contest based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(38969,2136,432307,432408,'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.
\n
\nA contest requires at least one party. 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nFor each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n'),(38970,2136,432408,432438,'A first-class player whoContestmaster is a member of an existing public contract CAN make switch, tracked by the contract into a Contest, Notary, 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 default value of \'none\', and provided e is not the contestmaster a set of possible values which consists of another contest. all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract is a contest requires at least one party. Any if and only if it has a contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report contains the contestmaster of each contest.
\n
\nAny player may make CAN flip the contestmaster of a contest cease public contract without 3 objections, except if doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more than one contest, or it would flip the contestmaster of a contest without 3 objections. Players SHOULD decide on whether contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract deserves to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contest based on its fairness or interest contract to a player who is not party to players as that contract; and if a whole. contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nFor each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n'),(38971,2136,432438,496950,'Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract is a contest if and only if it has a contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report contains the contestmaster of each contest.
\n
\nAny player CAN flip theThe contestmaster of a public contract without 3 objections, except CANNOT be flipped if doing any of the following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\nb) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more than one contest, or it contest.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.) contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nFor each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n'),(38972,2136,496950,496969,'Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract is a contest if and only if it has a contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report contains the contestmaster of each contest.
\n
\nThe contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\nb) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more than one contest.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\n its members parties that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other members parties by public announcement, and MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\n its members parties that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster from other members parties by public announcement, and MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\nFor each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n'),(38973,2136,496969,497400,' the Notary, Scorekeepor, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of \'none\' (default) and all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract is a players. A contest if and only if it has is a public contract whose contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report contains the contestmaster of each contest. is not \'none\'.
\n
\nThe contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\n contestmaster when a member of more than one contest. eir basis has already become a contestmaster within the past seven days.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nThe total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\nThe total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\nFor each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n'),(38974,2136,497400,497449,'Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is not \'none\'.
\n
\nThe contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\nb) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster within the past seven days.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38975,2136,497449,496918,' the Scorekeepor, Notary, with values \'none\' (default) a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players. A contest is a players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract whose contestmaster is not \'none\'. a contest if and only if it has a contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report contains the contestmaster of each contest.
\n
\nThe contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\n contestmaster when a member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster within the past seven days. more than one contest.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nChangesThe 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.
\n
\nThe total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are secured. 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.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n'),(38976,2137,405836,406585,'The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.
\n
\nThe Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.
\n
\nThe Assessor\'s report shall include the following:
\n
\na) Each player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals. b) Each player\'s voting credits.
\n'),(38977,2137,406585,496729,'The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.
\n
\nThe Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.
\n'),(38978,2137,496729,497431,'The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38979,2138,405833,405854,'The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and reports.
\n
\nThe Director of Personnel\'s IADoP\'s report shall include the following:
\n
\na) 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.
\n'),(38980,2138,405854,406271,'The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and reports.
\n
\n report shall include includes the following:
\n
\na) 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.
\n'),(38981,2138,406271,406548,' an low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and reports.
\n
\nThe IADoP\'s report includes the following:
\n
\na) 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.
\n'),(38982,2138,406548,496721,'The International Associate Director of Personnel is an low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and reports.
\n
\nThe IADoP\'s report includes the following:
\n
\n date of when the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent nomination period for changing the holder of that office. office began.
\n'),(38983,2138,496721,497177,'The International Associate Director of Personnel is an low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and reports.
\n
\nThe IADoP\'s report includes the following:
\n
\na) The holder of each office. b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office. c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that office began.
\n
\nThe portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP\'s report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.
\n'),(38984,2138,497177,497423,'The International Associate Director of Personnel is an low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and reports.
\n
\nThe IADoP\'s report includes the following:
\n
\na) The holder of each office. b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office. c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that office began.
\n
\nThe portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP\'s report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38985,2139,405831,496700,'The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of players.
\n
\n report shall include the following: includes, for each player:
\n
\na) Each player\'s nickname (if any) Information sufficient to identify and listed e-mail address (es). contact em. b) The date on which each player e most recently registered. c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data regarding each forum to players to receive messages there. became a player.
\n'),(38986,2140,496685,497410,'No entity with power below the power of this rule can
\n
\n(a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
\n
\n(b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than its own.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(38987,2141,405840,496691,'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.
\n
\nEvery rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.
\n
\nEvery rule shallRules have a number for identification. If a rule ever does not have an identifying number, the Rulekeepor shall assign a number ID numbers, to it by announcement as soon as possible. The number assigned must be a natural number greater than any number previously assigned to a rule. Once properly assigned, a rule\'s number cannot be changed. by the Rulekeepor.
\n
\nEvery 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.
\n
\n power, ID number, and title of a rule are all substantive aspects of the rule.
\n'),(38988,2141,496691,497308,'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.
\n
\nEvery rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.
\n
\n the Rulekeepor. Rulekeepor, and are strictly ordered.
\n
\nEvery 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.
\n
\nFor 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.
\n'),(38989,2141,497308,497388,'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.
\n
\nEvery rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.
\n
\nRules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are strictly ordered.
\n
\nEvery 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.
\n
\nForEvery rule is assigned to a number of committees (possibly zero). For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments, the text, power, ID number, title, and title committee assignments (if any) of a rule are all substantive aspects of the rule.
\n'),(38990,2142,405852,405993,' With 3 2 Supporters.
\n'),(38991,2142,405993,405994,' to 1.1 2 during its voting period With 2 Supporters.
\n'),(38992,2142,405994,432243,'AnyA player may change an Ordinary CAN, with 2 support, flip a proposal\'s Adoption Index chamber from ordinary to 2 during its voting period With 2 Supporters. democratic.
\n'),(38993,2142,432243,497267,' support, flip a proposal\'s chamber from change an ordinary decision to be democratic.
\n'),(38994,2142,497267,497200,'A player CAN, with 2 support, changeThe Grand Poobah is an ordinary decision to be democratic. office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of castes.
\n'),(38995,2143,405865,432221,' each office, the rules may designate certain information to be part of the corresponding officer\'s weekly report or monthly report. Any information designated to be part of the officer\'s report without specifying which report shall be part of the weekly report. If no information is designated to be part of the weekly (or monthly) report, then that office has no weekly (or, respectively, monthly) report. Each officer\'s report is an official report. office:
\n
\nThea) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the holder of an that office for which there is an officer\'s report is obliged to SHALL maintain all information in the report. E is obliged to such information, and SHALL publish the weekly report, if there is one, it at least once each week, and week. Otherwise, that office has no weekly report.
\n
\nb) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, if there is one, then the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information, and SHALL publish it at least once each month. month. Otherwise, that office has no monthly report.
\n
\nAny 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).
\n'),(38996,2143,432221,496722,'For each office:
\n
\n any information task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, duties, then the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information, and SHALL publish perform it at least once each week. Otherwise, If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the holder of that office has no SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that office\'s weekly report. duties.
\n
\n any information task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, duties, then the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information, and SHALL publish perform it at least once each month. Otherwise, If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then the holder of that office has no SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that office\'s monthly report. duties.
\n
\nAny 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).
\n'),(38997,2143,496722,497322,' each office: role:
\n
\n that office\'s role\'s weekly duties, then the holder of that office role SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s role\'s weekly report, then the holder of that office role SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that office\'s role\'s weekly duties.
\n
\n that office\'s role\'s monthly duties, then the holder of that office role SHALL perform it at least once each month. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s role\'s monthly report, then the holder of that office role SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that office\'s role\'s monthly duties.
\n
\n an office\'s role\'s report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly report (unless the office role is defined by the rules as low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).
\n'),(38998,2143,497322,497370,' each role: office:
\n
\n that role\'s office\'s weekly duties, then the holder of that role office SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that role\'s office\'s weekly report, then the holder of that role office SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that role\'s office\'s weekly duties.
\n
\n that role\'s office\'s monthly duties, then the holder of that role office SHALL perform it at least once each month. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that role\'s office\'s monthly report, then the holder of that role office SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that role\'s office\'s monthly duties.
\n
\n an role\'s office\'s report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly report (unless the role office is defined by the rules as low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).
\n'),(38999,2143,497370,497419,'For each office:
\n
\na) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform it at least once each week. 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 the publication of all such information is part of that office\'s weekly duties.
\n
\nb) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform it at least once each month. 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 the publication of all such information is part of that office\'s monthly duties.
\n
\nAny 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).
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39000,2144,405866,405964,'If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then itA partnership\'s basis is prohibited from registering. the set containing its natural-person members, plus each member of the basis of each of its non-natural-person members.
\n
\nIf a registered partnership\'s membership changes such that it contains exactlyA partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the same members as that of another registered partnership, then it is deregistered. partnership.
\n'),(39001,2144,405964,405981,'A partnership\'s basis is the set containing its natural-person members, plus each member of the basis of each of its non-natural-person members.
\n
\nA partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the same as that of another registered partnership.
\n
\nIf a registered partnership has the same basis as another registered partnership, it can be deregistered by any player by announcement.
\n'),(39002,2144,405981,405995,'A partnership\'s basis is the set containing its natural-person members, plus each member of the basis of each of its non-natural-person members.
\n
\nA partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the same as that of another registered partnership.
\n
\n player by announcement. with Agoran Consent.
\n'),(39003,2144,405995,406012,'A partnership\'s basis is the set containing its natural-person members, plus each member of the basis of each of its non-natural-person members.
\n
\nA partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the same as that of another registered partnership.
\n
\nIf a registered partnership has the same basis as another registered partnership, it can be deregistered by any player with Agoran Consent.
\n'),(39004,2144,406012,406492,' partnership is prohibited from registering SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as that of another registered partnership. 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.
\n
\n another registered partnership, it can be deregistered by player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.
\n'),(39005,2144,406492,406502,'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.
\n
\nIf a registered partnership has the same basis as another player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.
\n
\nIf a registered partnership is not a public contract, it can be degregistered with Support.
\n'),(39006,2144,406502,496699,'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.
\n
\nIf a registered partnership has the same basis as another player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.
\n
\nIf a registered partnership is not a public contract, it can be degregistered with Support.
\n'),(39007,2145,405875,405986,'A non-natural person that is created by an Agreement between two or more persons is known as a Partnership. A Partnership comes into existence with the initiation of the Agreement that creates it, and it ceases to exist when that Agreement is terminated. The persons who are party to the Agreement may change during the course of that Agreement (if the Agreement allows for it) without disrupting the existence of the Partnership as a person as long as that Agreement remains in effect.
\n
\nAgora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly assigns its rights, obligations, and responsibilities onto the parties of that agreement to be a non-natural person.
\n'),(39008,2145,405986,406014,'A non-natural person that is created binding agreement governed by an Agreement between two or more persons the rules which devolves its legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at least two, collectively, is known as a Partnership. A Partnership comes into existence with the initiation partnership. The members of a partnership are those parties onto whom the Agreement that creates it, partnership\'s legal obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity and it ceases to exist when that Agreement is terminated. The persons who partnershiphood are party not disrupted by changes to the Agreement may change during the course of its membership provided that Agreement (if the Agreement allows for it) without disrupting it continues to meet the existence definition of the Partnership as a person as long as that Agreement remains in effect. partnership.
\n
\nAgora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly assignsA partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the set of its rights, obligations, and responsibilities onto non-partnership members with the parties bases of each of its partnership members. Where circularity occurs in this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets that agreement to be provide consistency.
\n
\nA partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a non-natural person.
\n'),(39009,2145,406014,406378,'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.
\n
\n the set of its non-partnership members with the bases of each of its partnership members. Where circularity occurs in this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets that provide consistency.
\n
\nA partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a person.
\n'),(39010,2145,406378,406504,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person.
\n'),(39011,2145,406504,497265,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person.
\n
\nIf a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings, e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or would not adequately apply responsibility.
\n'),(39012,2145,497265,497356,'A binding agreement governed by the rules which partnership is a contract that devolves each of its legal obligations onto a subset at least one of its parties, numbering at least two, collectively, is a partnership. but does not devolve all of them solely onto one of its parties. 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person.
\n
\nIf a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings, e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or would not adequately apply responsibility.
\n'),(39013,2145,497356,497413,'A partnership is a contract that devolves each of its legal obligations onto at least one of its parties, but does not devolve all of them solely onto one of its parties. 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person.
\n
\nIf a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings, e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or would not adequately apply responsibility.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nProposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39014,2146,405877,496710,'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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(39015,2147,405914,497287,'Whereas Agora, beingWhen 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).
\n
\nIn order to become a Protectorate, Ambassador informs a foreign nomic must specify in its ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. It also must allow Agora unrestricted access to make changes to its ruleset. A player of said nomic may then cause that nomic to become a Protectorate by announcement to an event, e SHALL use the public forum. A nomic that no longer meets these requirements ceases to be a Protectorate.
\n
\nAgora shall treat a Protectorate in a benevolent fashion, making changes to forum (if any) specified by that nomic\'s ruleset only nomic for the purpose of assisting announcing that nomic in its growth and enabling its longevity. Agora may only make changes to a Protectorate\'s ruleset through a Proposal with an Adoption Index type of 2 or more, although this does not prohibit changes made to a Protectorate nomic by one or more of its players (or closest equivalent) according to the rules of that Protectorate. event.
\n'),(39016,2147,497287,406086,'WhenWhereas Agora, being the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic superpower of nomics, has an event, e SHALL use inherent responsibility to lead the forum (if any) specified 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).
\n
\nIn 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. For this purpose, the nomic may specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a protectorate.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nThe ambassador\'s report shall include a list of all protectorates, with contact details for each, and for announcing each the forum in which it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that type of event. target that protectorate.
\n'),(39017,2147,406086,406149,'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).
\n
\nIn 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. For this purpose, the nomic may specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a protectorate.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n ambassador\'s monthly report shall include 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.
\n'),(39018,2147,406149,406274,'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).
\n
\nIn 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. For this purpose, the nomic may specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a protectorate.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n report shall include 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.
\n'),(39019,2147,406274,406280,'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).
\n
\nIn 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. For this purpose, the nomic may specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a protectorate.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n ambassador\'s monthly 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.
\n'),(39020,2147,406280,497234,'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).
\n
\n proclamation. For this purpose, the nomic may specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a protectorate.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(39021,2147,497234,497456,'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).
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39022,2148,497233,405913,'The ambassador Ambassador is an office; Its holder is Agora\'s liaison to its Protectorates. The Ambassador\'s report shall include a listing of Protectorates as well as a list of recent events related to those Protectorates. On a minimum of a monthly basis, the Ambassador shall review each Protectorate to ensure it meets the requirements of a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics. Protectorate.
\n
\nA foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador. A foreign nomicThe Ambassador 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. to be the ambassador.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nRecognition act on behalf of Agora for an action that is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by permitted of Agora in the Ambassador, Protectorate\'s ruleset, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly, Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.
\n
\nWhen 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 the exception of direct changes to that Protectorate\'s ruleset as described above. Any Player may, with Agoran consent, require that the Ambassador act or from Protected not act in any other way.
\n
\nThe Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s Recognition to any value (subject specified fashion in relation to the above restriction). E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible. a Protectorate.
\n'),(39023,2148,405913,406085,'The Ambassador ambassador is an office; Its holder is Agora\'s liaison to its Protectorates. The Ambassador\'s report shall include a listing of Protectorates as well as a list of recent events related to those Protectorates. On a minimum of a monthly basis, the Ambassador shall review each Protectorate to ensure it meets the requirements of a Protectorate. office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\nThe AmbassadorA foreign nomic may act on behalf of Agora for an action that is permitted of Agora in the Protectorate\'s ruleset, with the exception of direct changes grant certain powers and privileges to that Protectorate\'s ruleset as described above. Any Player may, with Agoran consent, require that Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the Ambassador act or not act in a specified fashion ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in relation such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to a Protectorate. any nomic, to be the ambassador.
\n'),(39024,2148,406085,496787,' is an a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, to be the ambassador.
\n'),(39025,2148,496787,497365,'The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\n powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador. If If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, to be the ambassador.
\n'),(39026,2148,497365,497454,'The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\nA foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, to be the ambassador.
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39027,2148,497454,496960,'The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\n powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador. If If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, to be the ambassador.
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39028,2148,496960,406122,' is a low-priority an office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, to be the ambassador.
\n'),(39029,2149,405916,406035,'Players are prohibited from SHALL NOT deliberately or recklessly making make false statements in any public message. 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.
\n'),(39030,2149,406035,406151,'PlayersA player SHALL NOT deliberately or recklessly make a false statements statement in any public message. message while knowing that the statement is false or being reckless as to its veracity. 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.
\n'),(39031,2149,406151,406167,'ATruthiness is a player switch with values Knight (default) and Knave, tracked by the Speaker.
\n
\nA knight SHALL NOT make a false statement in any public message while knowing publish statements that the statement is false or being reckless as to its veracity. 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. e believes are false. A knave SHOULD NOT publish statements that e believes are true.
\n'),(39032,2149,406167,406194,' player switch with values Knight (default) and Knave, switch, tracked by the Speaker. Speaker, with the following possible values:
\n
\nAKNIGHT - the player is a knight (default) KNAVE - the player is a knave SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave
\n
\nA knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false. A knave SHOULD SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true.
\n'),(39033,2149,406194,406219,'Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the following possible values:
\n
\nKNIGHT - the player is a knight (default) KNAVE - the player is a knave SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave
\n
\nA knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false. A knave SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true.
\n
\nMerely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing 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.
\n'),(39034,2149,406219,406220,'Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the following possible values:
\n
\nKNIGHT - the player is a knight (default) KNAVE - the player is a knave SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave
\n
\n are false. A false or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true. true or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of.
\n
\nMerely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing 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.
\n'),(39035,2149,406220,406309,' the Speaker, Registrar, with the following possible values:
\n
\nKNIGHT - the player is a knight (default) KNAVE - the player is a knave SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave
\n
\nA knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of.
\n
\nMerely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing 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.
\n'),(39036,2149,406309,496686,'Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Registrar, with the following possible values:
\n
\nKNIGHT - the player is a knight (default) KNAVE - the player is a knave SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave
\n
\nA knightA person SHALL NOT publish statements that make a public statement unless e believes are false or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which in doing so e is reckless regarding telling the veracity of.
\n
\nMerely truth. Merely quoting a false statement does not constitute publishing 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.
\n'),(39037,2150,405940,406013,'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.
\n
\nAny biological organism that is capable of communicating by email in English is a person.
\n
\n"First-class person" means a person of a biological nature.
\n
\n"First-class player" means a player who is a first-class person.
\n'),(39038,2150,406013,432211,'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.
\n
\nAny biological organism that is capable of communicating by email in English is a person.
\n
\n"First-class person" means a person of a biological nature.
\n
\n"First-class player" means a player who is a first-class person.
\n
\nThe basis of a a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person.
\n'),(39039,2150,432211,432375,'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.
\n
\nAny biological organism that is capable of communicating by email in English is a person.
\n
\n"First-class person" means a person of a biological nature.
\n
\n"First-class player" means a player who is a first-class person.
\n
\n a a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person.
\n'),(39040,2150,432375,496897,'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.
\n
\nAny biological organism that is capable of communicating by email in English is a person.
\n
\n"First-class person" meansA first-class person is a person of a biological nature.
\n
\n"First-class player" means a player who is a first-class person. All other persons are second-class.
\n
\nThe basis of a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person.
\n'),(39041,2150,496897,497166,'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.
\n
\n is generally capable of communicating by email in English (including via a translation service) is a person.
\n
\nA first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All other persons are second-class.
\n
\nThe basis of a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person.
\n'),(39042,2150,497166,497340,' entity that has the general capacity to defined as such by rules with power of at least 2. A person CAN generally 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. rules.
\n
\nAny biological organism that is generally capable of communicating by email in English (including via a translation service) is a person.
\n
\nA first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All other persons are second-class.
\n
\nThe basis of a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person.
\n'),(39043,2150,497340,496712,' entity defined as such by rules with power of at least 2. A person CAN generally that has the general capacity to be the subject of rights and obligations under the rules. rules. An entity is a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with power 2 or greater.
\n
\n is generally capable of communicating by email in English (including via a translation service) is a person.
\n
\nA first-class person is"First-class person" means a person of a biological nature. All other persons are second-class.
\n
\n"First-class player" means a player who is a first-class person.
\n
\nThe basis of a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person.
\n'),(39044,2151,405979,497289,'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.
\n
\nAgora\'s adopted motto is "Agora n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n'),(39045,2151,497289,497238,'The escutcheon of Agora is defined by Speaker for 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.
\n
\nAgora\'s adopted motto is "Agora n\'est pas une fontaine." first game shall be Michael Norrish.
\n'),(39046,2152,406002,406229,'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).
\n
\n1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful.
\n
\n2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n
\n4. CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent CAN: Attempts to "CANNOT X unless Y". Similar for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y. perform the described action are successful.
\n
\n5. MAY: Performing the described action is permitted.
\n
\n5. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n6. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n'),(39047,2152,406229,406449,'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).
\n
\n1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful.
\n
\n2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n
\n4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
\n
\n5. MAY: Performing the described action is permitted.
\n
\n5.6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n6.7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n'),(39048,2152,406449,432206,'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).
\n
\n1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful.
\n
\n2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n
\n4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
\n
\n action is permitted. does not violate the rule in question.
\n
\n6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n'),(39049,2152,432206,496707,' more players persons in connection with a term, then the term applies only to the specified player(s). person(s).
\n
\n1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful.
\n
\n2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n
\n4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
\n
\n5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rule in question.
\n
\n6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n'),(39050,2152,496707,406003,' more persons players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to the specified person(s). player(s).
\n
\n1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful.
\n
\n2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n
\n4. CAN: Attempts CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent to perform the described action are successful. "CANNOT X unless Y". Similar for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y.
\n
\n5. MAY: Performing MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action does not violate violates the rule in question.
\n
\n6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n'),(39051,2152,406003,406286,'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).
\n
\n1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful.
\n
\n2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n
\n4. CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent CAN: Attempts to "CANNOT X unless Y". Similar for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y. perform the described action are successful.
\n
\n5. MAY: Performing the described action is permitted.
\n
\n5. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.
\n
\n6. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
\n'),(39052,2153,406004,496739,'AThe interest index of a proposal is disinterested if it is labeled as such an integer from 0 to 3. It CAN be set by its author the proposer at the time of submission. submission, or otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal should proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited proportional to correcting errors and/or ambiguities. its complexity.
\n
\nThe author and co-author(s) of"Disinterested" is a disinterested proposal do not receive any rewards synonym for "interest index 0". A proposal SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its adoption, rules effects are limited to the contrary notwithstanding. correcting errors and/or ambiguities.
\n'),(39053,2153,496739,497294,'TheAn entity\'s 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 3, default value 1. A proposal\'s An entity\'s interest index SHOULD be proportional to its complexity.
\n
\n index 0". A proposal SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited to correcting errors and/or ambiguities. 0".
\n'),(39054,2154,406009,406088,'Any Player may make an active Player (hereafter the nominee) the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n active players, players (rules to the contrary notwithstanding), 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.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n'),(39055,2154,406088,406100,'Any Player may make an active Player (hereafter the nominee) the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n then the attempt to achieve officeholding cannot be changed by means of this Agoran Consent fails, consent (even if consent was achieved), and the IADoP shall SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran Decision decision to determine the new office holder, meanwhile no further attempt to achieve officeholder. Until this Agoran Consent for decision is resolved, the office cannot change shall be valid. The valid options for hands by the mechanism of this rule.
\n
\nIn the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, the valid options are the nominees, quorum is a minimum the lesser of three and the number of active players (rules to the contrary (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.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n'),(39056,2154,406100,406157,'Any Player may player CAN make an active Player player (hereafter the nominee) the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) provided that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer nominee consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf, 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\nIf no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter.
\n'),(39057,2154,406157,406260,'Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the holder of an 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf, 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\nIfStability is an 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.
\n
\nIf an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing change the holder of a particular that office is announced in a given with Agoran consent was made during that quarter, then the IADoP shall SHALL make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is These requirements are waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way makes such a change during the following quarter.
\n'),(39058,2154,406260,406566,' 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nIf, 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.
\n
\nIn 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.
\n
\n 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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n'),(39059,2154,406566,432344,' Agoran Consent, provided that Consent and the nominee consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent nominee\'s consent; this process is made. known as installation.
\n
\nIf 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,If, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for Agoran Consent. Consent, another active player is nominated in this way and consents, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.
\n
\nIf, 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 initiateIn 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.
\n
\nIn the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, election, the valid options are the nominees, consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), 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 a candidate that received the largest number of votes; at least as many votes as any other candidate; this chosen nominee candidate thereby becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the valid notice. officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\n to change the holder of install a player into that office with Agoran consent was made during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such attempt in during the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if consent is achieved. These possible; however, these requirements are waived if another player makes such a change during the following quarter.
\n'),(39060,2154,432344,432346,'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 and the nominee\'s consent; this process is known as installation.
\n
\nIf, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for Agoran Consent, another active player is nominated in this way and consents, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.
\n
\n active players, and the vote collector is the IADoP. In players. In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate; this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nIf an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt to install a player into that office was made during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such attempt during the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if possible; however, these requirements are waived if another player makes such a change during the following quarter.
\n'),(39061,2154,432346,432388,'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 and the nominee\'s consent; this process is known as installation.
\n
\nIf, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for Agoran Consent, another active player is nominated in this way and consents, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate; this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nIf an office is TemporalThe IADoP SHALL make at the end of a quarter, and no least one attempt to install a player into that office was made during that quarter, then the IADoP an office, and SHALL make at least one such attempt during the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and SHALL make no such attempt was made during the change if possible; however, these requirements are previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the following quarter. current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39062,2154,432388,432392,'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 and the nominee\'s consent; this process is known as installation.
\n
\n Consent, another at least two active player is players are nominated in this way and consents, consent, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate; this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39063,2154,432392,432394,' CAN make an by announcement nominate one or more active player (hereafter the nominee) the holder of players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office, this begins a nomination period for that office, thus removing any previous holder from during which other candidates may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days. Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the office, with Agoran Consent and same office until the nominee\'s consent; this process nomination or resulting election is resolved. A player who has not refused eir nomination is known as installation. a consenting candidate.
\n
\nIf, duringAs soon as possible after the minimum waiting nomination period between intent and action defined for Agoran Consent, at least two active players are nominated ends, then: (a) if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em in this way and consent, the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding. an election.
\n
\n players. In If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate; candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player intoIf an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was is Temporal at the start end of that quarter a quarter, and no such attempt was made nomination period began for that office during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office during the previous following quarter. This requirement is These requirements are waived if another player so makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month). nomination.
\n'),(39064,2154,432394,496720,' an Office, this elected Office. This begins a nomination period for that office, during which other candidates may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days. Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved. A player who has not refused eir nomination is a consenting candidate.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as an election.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nIf an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no nomination period began for that office during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office during the following quarter. These requirements are waived if another player so makes a nomination.
\n'),(39065,2154,496720,496848,' A consenting candidate is a player who has was nominated during the first half of the nominating period and did not refused eir nomination is a consenting candidate. refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and accepted.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as an election.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nIf an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no nomination period began for that office during that quarter, then theThe IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the following previous quarter. These requirements are This requirement is waived if another player so makes such a nomination. change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39066,2154,496848,496856,'Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a nomination period for that office, during which other candidates may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days. Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated during the first half of the nominating period and did not refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and accepted.
\n
\n an election. election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees and the office is vacant, the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible, resolve the nomination as Failed by announcement and begin a new nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold the office.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIf at any time during an election there remains only one valid option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the remaining candidate in the office by announcement.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39067,2154,496856,496858,'Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a nomination period for that office, during which other candidates may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days. Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated during the first half of the nominating period and did not refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and accepted.
\n
\n an election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees and the office is vacant, the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible, resolve the nomination as Failed by announcement and begin a new nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold the office. election.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIf at any time during an election there remains only one valid option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the remaining candidate in the office by announcement.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39068,2154,496858,496873,'Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a nomination period for that office, during which other candidates may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days. Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated during the first half of the nominating period and did not refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and accepted.
\n
\n an election. election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees and the office is vacant, the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible, resolve the nomination as Failed by announcement and begin a new nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold the office.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIf at any time during an election there remains only one valid option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the remaining candidate in the office by announcement.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39069,2154,496873,496926,'Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a nomination period for that office, during which other candidates may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days. Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated during the first half of the nominating period and did not refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and accepted.
\n
\n nominees and the office is vacant, the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible, possible resolve the nomination as Failed by announcement and announcement; if the office is vacant e shall begin a new nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold the office. office as soon as possible.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIf at any time during an election there remains only one valid option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the remaining candidate in the office by announcement.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39070,2154,496926,496936,' a first-class player who was nominated during the first half of the nominating period and did not refuse, or any player who was nominated during the second half nominating period and accepted.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as an election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible resolve the nomination as Failed by announcement; if the office is vacant e shall begin a new nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold the office as soon as possible.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e ceases to be a valid option.
\n
\nIf at any time during an election there remains only one valid option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the remaining candidate in the office by announcement.
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.
\n
\nStability 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month).
\n'),(39071,2154,496936,497175,' announcement nominate one or more active players to be candidate(s) initiate an election for an elected Office. This begins a nomination period office for that office, during which other candidates may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days. Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the same office until the nomination or resulting no election is resolved. A consenting candidate is a first-class player who was nominated during the first half of the already in progress, nominating period and did not refuse, or any player who was nominated during the nominating period and accepted. at least one active player.
\n
\nAs soon as possible afterDuring the nomination period ends, then: (a) if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known as an election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible resolve first four days of the election (the nomination as Failed by announcement; if the office is vacant e shall begin a new nomination period period), any player CAN by nominating at least announcement nominate one player to hold the office as soon as possible. or more active players.
\n
\nIn an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three andAs soon as possible after the number of active players (other rules on quorum notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players. If a player refuses eir nomination during period ends, the election, e ceases IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to be a valid option. determine the new officeholder. For this decision:
\n
\nIf at any time during an election there remains only one1) The valid option, the election stops and options (hereafter the IADOP SHALL install candidates) are the remaining candidate in active players who, during the office by announcement. election,
\n
\nIn the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate thata) received at least as many votes as any other candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes and accepted a nomination for the office before the officeholder. decision was initiated (self-nomination constitutes acceptance), and
\n
\nStability is an elected office switch, tracked byb) did not decline a nomination for 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.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player into an office, and SHALL make the set of candidates can change if possible, under after the following circumstances: decision is initiated.
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.2) The eligible voters are the active players.
\n
\nb) Within3) Each eligible voter\'s voting limit is one. An ordered list of multiple choices constitutes a week (or month, conditional vote for the first choice if it could be the office is low-priority) after outcome, otherwise the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement is waived second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth.
\n
\nUpon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a candidate) is installed into the office, and the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month). election ends.
\n'),(39072,2154,497175,497312,'Any player CAN by announcement initiate an election for an elected office for which no election is already in progress, nominating at least one active player.
\n
\nDuring the first four days of the election (the nomination period), any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active players.
\n
\n officeholder. For For this decision:
\n
\n1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active players who, during the election,
\n
\na) received and accepted a nomination for the office before the decision was initiated (self-nomination constitutes acceptance), and
\n
\n the office. office, and
\n
\nc) are Senators if there is currently an Emergency Session.
\n
\nThe set of candidates can change after the decision is initiated.
\n
\n2) The If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is initiated, the eligible voters are the active players. Otherwise, the eligible voters are the active players. Senators.
\n
\n one. An An ordered list of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for the first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth.
\n
\nUpon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.
\n'),(39073,2154,497312,497421,'Any player CAN by announcement initiate an election for an elected office for which no election is already in progress, nominating at least one active player.
\n
\nDuring the first four days of the election (the nomination period), any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active players.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after the nomination period ends, the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder. For this decision:
\n
\n1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active players who, during the election,
\n
\na) received and accepted a nomination for the office before the decision was initiated (self-nomination constitutes acceptance), and
\n
\nb) did not decline a nomination for the office, and
\n
\nc) are Senators if there is currently an Emergency Session.
\n
\nThe set of candidates can change after the decision is initiated.
\n
\n2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is initiated, the eligible voters are the active players. Otherwise, the eligible voters are the active Senators.
\n
\n3) Each eligible voter\'s voting limit is one. An ordered list of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for the first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth.
\n
\nUpon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39074,2155,406037,406246,' most of. of, or Gray if e possesses none. Ties are broken in favor of lost by the color(s) that e gained most recently; ties not resolved by this method are won by the color that comes first in alphabetical order.
\n'),(39075,2156,406048,406057,' is one, four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. BVLOP cannot be modified.
\n
\nEach player has a parameter known as eir volatile voting limit on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player is registered, eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. VVLOP can be modified by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule, but not by any other means.
\n
\nEach player has a parameter 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(39076,2156,406057,406168,'Each player has a parameter 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.
\n
\nEach player has a parameter known as eir volatile voting limit on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player is registered, eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. VVLOP can be modified by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the power of this rule, but not by any other means.
\n
\nEach player has a parameter 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.
\n
\n voting period, or half that (rounded up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting period.
\n'),(39077,2156,406168,406337,'Each player has a parameter 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.
\n
\n BVLOP. VVLOP can be modified by the action of an instrument with power greater than or equal Changes to the power of this rule, but not by any other means. VVLOP are secured
\n
\nEach player has a parameter 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(39078,2156,406337,432239,' has a parameter 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 BVLOP cannot be modified.
\n
\n has a parameter 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
\n
\n has a parameter 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n'),(39079,2156,432239,432295,' ordinary proposals (BVLOP). decisions (BVLOD). The BVLOP BVLOD of a first-class player is four, and the BVLOP BVLOD of any other player is zero. BVLOP BVLOD cannot be modified.
\n
\n ordinary proposals (VVLOP). decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player is registered, eir VVLOP VVLOD is set to eir BVLOP. BVLOD. Changes to VVLOP VVLOD are secured
\n
\n ordinary proposals (EVLOP). decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player is registered, eir EVLOP EVLOD is set to eir BVLOP. BVLOD. At the end of each week, each player\'s EVLOP EVLOD is set to eir VVLOP, VVLOD, rounded to an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP VVLOD is set to the same rounded value. EVLOP EVLOD cannot be modified by any other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOP. EVLOD.
\n
\n ordinary proposal decision 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 decision is eir EVLOP EVLOD 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.
\n'),(39080,2156,432295,496744,' four, the BVLOD of a province is four, and the BVLOD of any other player is zero. BVLOD BVLOD cannot be modified.
\n
\nEach player has an associated number known as eir volatile voting limit on ordinary decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player is registered, eir VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. Changes to VVLOD are secured
\n
\nEach player has an associated number known as eir effective voting limit on ordinary decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player is registered, eir EVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. At the end of each week, each player\'s EVLOD is set to eir VVLOD, rounded to an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOD is set to the same rounded value. EVLOD cannot be modified by any other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOD.
\n
\nThe eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its voting period. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir EVLOD 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.
\n'),(39081,2156,496744,496806,'Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting limit on ordinary decisions (BVLOD). The BVLOD ofCaste is a first-class player is four, switch, tracked by the BVLOD of a province is four, and Grand Poobah, with the BVLOD of any other player is zero. BVLOD cannot be modified. following values and their numeric equivalents:
\n
\nEach player has an associated number known as eir volatile voting limit on ordinary decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player is registered, eir VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. Changes to VVLOD are securedAlpha - 8 Beta - 5 Gamma - 3 Delta - 2 Epsilon - 1 (default for first-class players and provinces) Savage - 0 (default for all other players)
\n
\nEach player has an associated number known as eir effective voting limit on ordinary decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player is registered, eir EVLOD is setChanges to eir BVLOD. At the end of each week, each player\'s EVLOD is set to eir VVLOD, rounded to an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOD is set to the same rounded value. EVLOD cannot be modified by any other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOD. caste are secured.
\n
\n eir EVLOD caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded up) if the voter is was in the chokey at the start of the voting period. that time.
\n'),(39082,2156,496806,496882,'Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the following values and their numeric equivalents:
\n
\n for active first-class players and provinces) Savage - 0 (default for all other players)
\n
\nChanges to caste are secured.
\n
\nThe eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its voting period. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\n2008
\n'),(39083,2156,496882,496915,'Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the following values and their numeric equivalents:
\n
\nAlpha - 8 Beta - 5 Gamma - 3 Delta - 2 Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and provinces) Savage - 0 (default for all other players)
\n
\n are secured. secured, lest a coalition of high-caste players grant itself a boring permanence.
\n
\nThe eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its voting period. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\n2008
\n'),(39084,2156,496915,497199,'Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the following values and their numeric equivalents:
\n
\nAlpha - 8 Beta - 5 Gamma - 3 Delta - 2 Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and provinces) Savage - 0 (default for all other players)
\n
\nChanges to caste are secured, lest a coalition of high-caste players grant itself a boring permanence.
\n
\n eir voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\n2008 2008
\n'),(39085,2156,497199,497303,'Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the following values and their numeric equivalents:
\n
\nAlpha - 8 Beta - 5 Gamma - 3 Delta - 2 Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and provinces) Savage - 0 (default for all other players)
\n
\nChanges to caste are secured, lest a coalition of high-caste players grant itself a boring permanence.
\n
\n eir initial voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time. 2008
\n'),(39086,2157,406074,406160,'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.
\n
\n panel\'s members. By members, or with the majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC. 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.
\n'),(39087,2157,406160,432250,'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.
\n
\n CotC. By 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.
\n'),(39088,2157,432250,432329,'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.
\n
\n or (if the CotC is not a member) with the majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC. The 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
\n
\nA judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of its obligations.
\n'),(39089,2157,432329,432393,'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.
\n
\n unanimous agreement Support of the panel\'s other members, or (if the CotC is not a member) with the majority agreement Support of at least half the other members and the consent Support of the CotC. The CotC SHOULD consent to so Support 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.
\n
\nA judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of its obligations.
\n'),(39090,2157,432393,496756,'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.
\n
\n or (if (unless the CotC is not a member) member of the panel, the prior judge, or unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the Support of at least half the other members and the Support of the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support 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.
\n
\nA judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of its obligations.
\n'),(39091,2157,496756,497331,'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.
\n
\n other members, or (unless the CotC is a member of the panel, the prior judge, or unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the Support of at least half the other members and the Support of the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support a majority action if the panel has made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. members. By this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the rules state that an action is performed by sending a message. message. The rules may specify other mechanisms by which the judicial panel CAN act.
\n
\nA judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of its obligations.
\n'),(39092,2157,497331,497439,'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.
\n
\nA judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its members sending a message identified as being from the panel, with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members. By this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the rules state that an action is performed by sending a message. The rules may specify other mechanisms by which the judicial panel CAN act.
\n
\nA judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of its obligations.
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39093,2158,406075,406197,'Within a judicial case, one or more judicial questions may arise. Each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable; this is not a persistent status but is evaluated instantaneously. Each judicial question either is open (default), suspended, or has a particular judgement; this is a persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The possible types of judgement for a judicial question vary according to the type of question.
\n
\nWhen a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question, it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement to that question by announcement. Whenever there is a judge assigned to a judicial case with an applicable open question, the judge SHALL assign such a judgement to the question as soon as possible.
\n
\n judge with cause by announcement. Whenever a judicial case has a judicial question that has remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been assigned to the case, continuously for the past two weeks, the CotC SHALL so recuse the judge as soon as possible.
\n
\nAmong the possible judgements of a judicial question, some subset of them are appropriate. Judgements are appropriate only where so defined by the rules. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement. Where more than one appropriate judgement is available, the choice between them is at the judge\'s discretion.
\n'),(39094,2158,406197,406561,'Within a judicial case, one or more judicial questions may arise. EachA judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable; this is not a persistent status but is evaluated instantaneously. Each judicial question either is open (default), suspended, or has a particular judgement; this is a persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The possible types of judgement for arises within a judicial question vary according to case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the type of question. rules.
\n
\nWhen a judicial case has an applicable openAt any time, each judicial question, it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement to that question by announcement. Whenever there is either inapplicable (default) or applicable. This is not a judge assigned to a judicial case with an applicable open question, the judge SHALL assign such a judgement to the question as soon as possible. persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nWhenever aAt any time, each judicial case question is either open (default), suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a judicial question persistent status that has remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been assigned changes only according to the case, continuously rules. The possible types of judgement for the past week, the CotC CAN recuse that judge with cause by announcement. Whenever a judicial case has a judicial question that has remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been assigned to the case, continuously for the past two weeks, the CotC SHALL so recuse depend on the judge as soon as possible. type of question.
\n
\nAmong the possible judgements ofWhen a judicial question, some subset of them are appropriate. Judgements are question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge.
\n
\nWhen 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 where so as defined by the rules. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement. Where If more than one appropriate judgement is available, valid and appropriate, then the choice between them is at left to the judge\'s discretion. discretion.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n'),(39095,2158,406561,432315,'A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.
\n
\nAt any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge.
\n
\n SHALL assign an appropriate judgement to it do so as soon as possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial question. 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n'),(39096,2158,432315,432364,' the rules. rules. Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7.
\n
\nAt any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge.
\n
\n rules. Defining these things is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge\'s discretion.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n'),(39097,2158,432364,496757,'A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules. Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7.
\n
\nAt any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge.
\n
\nWhen 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 do so as soon as possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge\'s discretion.
\n
\n its case has the same judge assigned has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, continuously for one week, the Clerk of the Courts CAN SHALL 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 announcement as soon as possible. possible; however, this requirement is waived if the judge assigns a judgement to it first.
\n'),(39098,2158,496757,497212,'A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules. Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7.
\n
\nAt any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge.
\n
\n things is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge\'s discretion.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the judge assigns a judgement to it first.
\n'),(39099,2158,497212,497434,'A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules. Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7.
\n
\nAt any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge.
\n
\n judge SHALL SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge\'s discretion.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the judge assigns a judgement to it first.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39100,2159,497235,406087,' Agora whose intended effect is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate nomic. 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 the protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the protectorate\'s gamestate.
\n
\nInitiating a protective decree is secured, and is INVALID unless the initiatingWhere permitted by other rules, an instrument unambiguously specifies the target The initiation with power 2 or greater generally can, as part of its effect, initiate a protective decree is a secured change. decree. 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.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a protective decree has been initiated, the ambassador SHALL shall proclaim it to the target nomic. The nomic, in whatever forum is most suitable for this purpose. The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.
\n
\nProtective 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, that a document is a protective decree.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nA player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.
\n
\nThe Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable foreign assets.
\n
\nPlayers are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.
\n'),(39101,2159,406087,406340,'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.
\n
\nWhere permitted by other rules, an instrument with power 2 or greater generally can, as partThe initiation of its effect, initiate a protective decree. 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.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a protective decree has been initiated, the ambassador shall proclaim it to the target nomic, in whatever forum is most suitable for this purpose. The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.
\n
\nProtective 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, that a document is a protective decree.
\n'),(39102,2159,406340,496792,'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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n ambassador shall SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic, in whatever forum is most suitable for this purpose. The nomic. The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.
\n
\nProtective 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, that a document is a protective decree.
\n'),(39103,2159,496792,497347,' Agora the whose intended effect of which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate nomic. The 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.
\n
\nThe initiation ofInitiating a protective decree is a secured change. The secured, and is INVALID unless the initiating instrument must specify unambiguously specifies 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. it.
\n
\nAs 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.
\n
\nProtective 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, that a document is a protective decree.
\n'),(39104,2159,497347,497457,'A protective decree is an act of Agora whose intended effect 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.
\n
\nInitiating a protective decree is secured, and is INVALID unless the initiating instrument unambiguously specifies the target protectorate and the changes to be made to it.
\n
\nAs 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.
\n
\nProtective 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.
\n
\nAll players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, that a document is a protective decree.
\n
\n
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39105,2160,406094,406236,'Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and
\n
\n(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and
\n
\n announced at least between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and
\n
\n(d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office.
\n'),(39106,2160,406236,406581,' particular office position (deputise for that office) position) if:
\n
\n that office, position, by virtue of holding that office, position, to perform the action (or, if the office position is vacant, would so require if the office position were filled); and
\n
\n(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and
\n
\n that office position for the purposes of the particular action; and
\n
\n the office. position.
\n'),(39107,2160,406581,496726,' particular position office (deputise for that position) office) if:
\n
\n that position, office, by virtue of holding that position, office, to perform the action (or, if the position office is vacant, would so require if the position office were filled); and
\n
\n(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and
\n
\n that position office for the purposes of the particular action; and
\n
\n the position. office.
\n'),(39108,2160,496726,497420,'Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and
\n
\n(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and
\n
\n(c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and
\n
\n(d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008 woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39109,2160,497420,497291,'Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and
\n
\n(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and
\n
\n(c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and
\n
\n(d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008 woggle, ais523), 23 January 20092008
\n'),(39110,2161,406105,406154,'If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:
\n
\n rule (or, if there is no such player, the Speaker) SHALL assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as possible.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.
\n
\n(e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then that officer\'s report SHALL include the greatest orderly ID number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously assigned to the type of entity.
\n'),(39111,2161,406154,496709,'If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.
\n
\n report SHALL include includes the greatest orderly ID number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously assigned to the type of entity.
\n'),(39112,2161,496709,496867,'If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it has no name.
\n'),(39113,2161,496867,497309,'If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n ID number, and greater than any orderly ID number, number previously assigned to an entity of that type. type, and (if the type of entity is defined by the rules as strictly ordered) greater than any orderly ID number so assigned. The player SHALL SHOULD select the smallest number possible, unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller number might be invalid or confusing. possible.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it has no name.
\n'),(39114,2161,497309,496955,'If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n ID number number, and greater than any orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that type, and (if the type of entity is defined by the rules as strictly ordered) greater than any orderly ID number so assigned. type. The player SHOULD SHALL select the smallest number possible. possible, unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller number might be invalid or confusing.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it has no name.
\n'),(39115,2162,406115,496711,'A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and specify the following:
\n
\na) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch. No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\n not Null. its default value.
\n
\nAt 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.
\n
\n"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.
\n'),(39116,2164,406152,432252,' by announcement. announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at least four days, such a recusal is with cause.
\n
\nJudicial 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:
\n
\n(a) the case has a judge assigned (the transferor); and
\n
\n(b) the transferor and the transferee are different entities; and
\n
\n(c) the transferor has previously publicly consented to the transfer and not publicly withdrawn that consent; and
\n
\n(d) the transferee is qualified to be assigned as judge of the case; and
\n
\n(e) the transferee immediately (in the same announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in the case.
\n'),(39117,2164,432252,496758,'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.
\n
\nJudicial cases can generally be transferred between judges by this procedure: anAn entity (the transferee) CAN assign emself as CAN, with consent from the current judge of a judicial case by announcement if:
\n
\n(a) the case has a judge assigned (the transferor); and
\n
\n(b) the transferor and the transferee are different entities; and
\n
\n(c) the transferor has previously publicly consented to transferor), assign emself as the transfer and not publicly withdrawn new judge of that consent; and
\n
\n(d) the transferee case, provided that e is qualified to be assigned as judge of the case; that case, and
\n
\n(e) the transferee e immediately (in the same announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in the that case.
\n'),(39118,2164,496758,497355,' announcement. If Such a recusal is with cause if and only if e has been assigned to the case for at least four days, such a recusal is with cause. days.
\n
\nAn entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that case.
\n'),(39119,2164,497355,497219,'The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any time by announcement. Such a recusal is with cause if and only if e has been assigned to the case for at least four days.
\n
\nAnAn entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current judge Each of the following participants in a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the new judge of that case, provided SHOULD present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled) relevant to that case as e is qualified reasonably able to be assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in collect: 1) The initiator, when initiating the same announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that case.
\n'),(39120,2166,406214,406247,' instrument or contract (hereafter its backing document).
\n
\n the Bank. 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.
\n
\nA currency isThe recordkeepor of a class of asset assets is the entity defined as such by its backing document. Instances of That entity\'s report includes a currency with the same owner are fungible. list of all instances of that class and their owners. This portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.
\n
\nA fixedAn asset is one defined as such generally CAN be created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. Any other To "gain" an asset is liquid. The owner of a liquid asset generally CAN transfer to have it created in one\'s possession; to "award" an asset to another an entity by announcement. is to create it in that entity\'s possession.
\n
\nThe recordkeepor of a class of assets isAn asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, and an asset owned by the entity defined as such Bank generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. If this portion of that entity\'s report To "lose" an asset is not challenged within a week after its publication, then to have it becomes correct, even if destroyed from one\'s possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it would otherwise be incorrect. from that entity\'s possession.
\n
\nIf an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then thatA asset CANNOT generally CAN be gained by or transferred by its owner to an another entity outside that class, 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 destroyed if it liquid.
\n
\nA currency is owned a class of asset defined as such by an entity outside that class. its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n'),(39121,2166,406247,406511,'An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or contract (hereafter its backing document).
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n 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 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n'),(39122,2166,406511,432374,' backing document). document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n'),(39123,2166,432374,432376,'An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAAn 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n'),(39124,2166,432376,496713,'An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\n the Bank. Lost and Found Department. 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. class (except for the Lost and Found Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection).
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n the Bank Lost and Found Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. To 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n
\n
\n
\nupon
\n'),(39125,2166,496713,496942,' an instrument rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\nEach asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. 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 (except for the Lost and Found Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection).
\n
\n entity (if any) defined as such by by, and bound 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAn asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found Department 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n
\n
\n
\nupon
\n
\ncounts as a transfer,
\n'),(39126,2166,496942,496947,'An asset is an entity defined as such by an rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\nEach asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. 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 (except for the Lost and Found Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection).
\n
\nThe recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAn asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found Department 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n
\nA class of assets is public if its backing document is a rule or a public contract; otherwise it is private.
\n
\n
\n
\nupon
\n
\ncounts as a transfer,
\n'),(39127,2166,496947,496971,' by an a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\nEach asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. 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 (except for the Lost and Found Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection).
\n
\nThe recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAn asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found Department 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n
\nA class of assets is public if its backing document is a rule or a public contract; otherwise it is private.
\n
\n
\n
\nupon
\n
\ncounts as a transfer,
\n'),(39128,2166,496971,497345,'An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\nEach asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. 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 (except for the Lost and Found Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection).
\n
\nThe recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAn asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found Department 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n
\nA public class of assets is public if its a class of assets whose backing document is a rule or a public contract; otherwise it is contract. All others are private.
\n
\n
\n
\nupon
\n
\ncounts as a transfer,
\n'),(39129,2166,497345,497416,'An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
\n
\nEach asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. 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 (except for the Lost and Found Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection).
\n
\nThe recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nAn asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found Department 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nA currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
\n
\nA public class of assets is a class of assets whose backing document is a rule or a public contract. All others are private.
\n
\n
\n
\nupon
\n
\ncounts as a transfer,
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39130,2168,496732,497255,' decision will immediately be is instead doubled, provided this has not already happened for the decision in question.
\n
\nUpon 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.
\n'),(39131,2169,497216,406232,'Being in exileThere 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 Losing Condition. 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).
\n
\nBeing inThe initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. During the chokey is pre-trial phase, the case requires a Losing Condition. 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.
\n
\n16 January 2008The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
\n
\nAn 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 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.
\n
\nWhen an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past week, 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n'),(39132,2169,406232,406451,'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).
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
\n
\n the 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.
\n
\nWhen an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past week, 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n'),(39133,2169,406451,406478,'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).
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nWhen an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past week, 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n'),(39134,2169,406478,406508,'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).
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n past week, 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.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n'),(39135,2169,406508,432325,'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).
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\n past week, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, week CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question by announcement.
\n'),(39136,2169,432325,432402,'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).
\n
\n phase. During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the pre-trial phase the judge CotC SHALL as soon as possible in a timely fashion inform all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The 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.
\n
\nThe members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question by announcement.
\n'),(39137,2169,432402,496762,''),(39138,2169,496762,497276,'ThereEquity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s 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, 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). obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly identify the set of parties to the contract. For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion 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.
\n
\nThe initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform all the contracting parties of the case and invite them initiator is unqualified to submit arguments regarding the equitability be assigned as judge 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.
\n
\nThe case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in all unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. entities being unqualified.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\n judgement is in effect becomes Enforceable as a binding agreement between set of regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.
\n
\nEvery party to the parties. In contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are satisfied, though this role it requirement does not create the ability to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise perform.
\n
\nIf a party fails to act as specified, e is subject in violation of this Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the party may be subjected to modification a criminal punishment other than DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.
\n
\nThe judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a specified term or termination terms of the judgement, thereby removing the requirement of parties to act as specified.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the usual processes governing binding agreements. judgement was fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no longer applicable due to changed circumstances.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement inIf an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case within the past week CAN regarding a private contract would otherwise be initiated by any party to invalid solely because the contract in question by announcement. does not exist or the initiator is not party to it, then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null judgement.
\n'),(39139,2169,497276,497323,' are measured as of the time the case was initiated; however, if the initiating message specifies a different time that falls within the week before the case was initiated, then that time is used instead.
\n
\nThe initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion 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.
\n
\nThe initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in all entities being unqualified.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nWhen 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 becomes Enforceable as a set of regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.
\n
\nEvery party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise perform.
\n
\nIf a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.
\n
\nThe judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the requirement of parties to act as specified.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no longer applicable due to changed circumstances.
\n
\nIf an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it, then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null judgement.
\n'),(39140,2169,497323,497438,' case\'s 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 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). This announcement SHALL also clearly identify the set of parties to the contract. For
\n
\nFor the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are measured as of the time the case was initiated; however, if the initiating message specifies a different time that falls within the week before the case was initiated, then that time is used instead.
\n
\nThe initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion 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.
\n
\nThe initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in all entities being unqualified.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nWhen 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 becomes Enforceable as a set of regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.
\n
\nEvery party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise perform.
\n
\nIf a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.
\n
\nThe judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the requirement of parties to act as specified.
\n
\nAn appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no longer applicable due to changed circumstances.
\n
\nIf an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it, then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null judgement.
\n
\n
\n
\nProposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39141,2170,432204,496705,'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.
\n
\nThe Executor of a public message is the first-class person who sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is the executor of the announcement.
\n'),(39142,2170,496705,496802,'Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those persons within Agora.
\n
\nA person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead others as to the identity of its publisher.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nThe Executor of a public message is the first-class person who sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is the executor of the announcement.
\n'),(39143,2170,496802,496862,'Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those persons within Agora.
\n
\nA person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead others as to the identity of its publisher.
\n
\n message\'s (possibly implicit) claim as to who published it the identity of its publisher is self-ratifying, unless provided that the claim is neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, or a and no challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued within one month before its publication. publication. Upon a judicial finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet was a person during one or more time periods, which SHOULD correspond to general belief prior to that finding.
\n
\nThe Executor of a public message is the first-class person who sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is the executor of the announcement.
\n'),(39144,2170,496862,496863,'Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those persons within Agora.
\n
\nA person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead others as to the identity of its publisher.
\n
\nA public message\'s (possibly implicit) claim as to the identity of its publisher is self-ratifying, provided that the claim is neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, and no challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued within one month before its publication. Upon a judicial finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet was a person during one or more time periods, which SHOULD correspond to general belief prior to that finding.
\n
\n sent. The (Upon a judicial finding that the Executor of a public message cannot otherwise be determined within reasonable effort, the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial declaration specifying the identity of that message\'s Executor.) The executor of an action performed by announcement is the executor of the announcement.
\n'),(39145,2170,496863,496894,'Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those persons within Agora.
\n
\nA person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead others as to the identity of its publisher.
\n
\nA player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname, including but not limited to a name that has generally been used to refer to another entity within the past three months.
\n
\nA public message\'s (possibly implicit) claim as to the identity of its publisher is self-ratifying, provided that the claim is neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, and no challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued within one month before its publication. Upon a judicial finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet was a person during one or more time periods, which SHOULD correspond to general belief prior to that finding.
\n
\nThe Executor of a public message is the first-class person who sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be sent. (Upon a judicial finding that the Executor of a public message cannot otherwise be determined within reasonable effort, the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial declaration specifying the identity of that message\'s Executor.) The executor of an action performed by announcement is the executor of the announcement.
\n'),(39146,2173,460463,432431,' of contracts. track of contracts.
\n
\nofThe 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. report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties. contract.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(39147,2173,432431,496828,' is a low-priority an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of contracts.
\n
\n Notary\'s weekly report includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly report includes this information for each public contract. contract\'s text and set of parties.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(39148,2173,496828,497446,'The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of contracts.
\n
\nThe parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.
\n
\n
\n
\n20082008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39149,2173,497446,496889,'The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of contracts.
\n
\nThe parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 20092008
\n'),(39150,2173,496889,496844,''),(39151,2174,497264,497229,'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.
\n
\n
\nContestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract is a contest if and only if it has a contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report contains the contestmaster of each contest. following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\nb) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more than one contest. player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n
\nThe total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\nThe total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are first- class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\nFor each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n
\n
\n
\nPoints are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\n
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39152,2175,406345,406384,'AIf a judicial case initiated has not had any judge assigned to it, then:
\n
\na) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a person who has judicial case.
\n
\nb) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases during the same Agoran Week week as that case is an Excess CFJ. The case, then the Clerk of the Courts CAN, CAN refuse it by announcement, refuse an Excess CFJ that has not had any judge assigned to it. Refusal of an Excess CFJ causes thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.
\n'),(39153,2175,406384,496751,'If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:
\n
\na) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.
\n
\n 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.
\n'),(39154,2175,496751,496899,' case (other than an appeal case) has not had any judge assigned to it, then:
\n
\na) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n'),(39155,2175,496899,497280,'IfA new case is a judicial case (other than an appeal case) that If a judicial case (other than an appeal case) has not had any judge assigned to it, then:
\n
\na) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n'),(39156,2176,406374,406415,'Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted to persons.
\n
\n the Mark. Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all, either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.
\n
\nMarks are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) At the end of a proposal\'s voting period, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark. If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark. If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(-R) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks, and the author loses ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(+G) At the end of each month, for each office without a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month, in which case the deputising player gains one Green Mark.
\n
\n(+B) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.
\n
\n(-B) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one Blue Mark.
\n
\nOnly valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for gaining and losing Red Marks.
\n
\nMarks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC of that color.
\n'),(39157,2176,406415,406431,'Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted to persons.
\n
\nEach Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all, either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.
\n
\nMarks are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+R) At(+r) When the end Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal\'s voting period, proposal is resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark. If If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark. If If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(-R)(-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks, and the author loses ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(+G)(+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month, in which case the deputising player gains one Green Mark.
\n
\n(+B)(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.
\n
\n(-B)(-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one Blue Mark.
\n
\nOnly valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for gaining and losing Red Marks.
\n
\nMarks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC of that color.
\n'),(39158,2176,406431,406436,'Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted to persons.
\n
\nEach Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all, either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.
\n
\nMarks are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark. If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark. If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks, and the author loses ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month, in which case the deputising player gains one Green Mark.
\n
\n(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.
\n
\n(-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one Blue Mark.
\n
\nOnly valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for gaining and losing Red Marks.
\n
\nMarks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nMark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce VC awards of the same color.
\n'),(39159,2176,406436,406460,'Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted to persons.
\n
\nEach Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all, either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).
\n
\nThe Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.
\n
\nMarks are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark. If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark. If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks, and the author loses ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month, in which case the deputising player gains one Green Mark.
\n
\n(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.
\n
\n Blue Mark. Mark. When a concurring opinion is published, the prior judge loses a number of Blue Marks equal to its error rating.
\n
\nOnly valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for gaining and losing Red Marks.
\n
\nMarks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nMark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce VC awards of the same color.
\n'),(39160,2176,406460,406470,'Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted to persons.
\n
\nEach Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all, either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).
\n
\nThe Assessor Accountor is the recordkeepor of Marks.
\n
\nMarks are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark. If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark. If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks, and the author loses ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month, in which case the deputising player gains one Green Mark.
\n
\n(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.
\n
\n(-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one Blue Mark. When a concurring opinion is published, the prior judge loses a number of Blue Marks equal to its error rating.
\n
\nOnly valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for gaining and losing Red Marks.
\n
\nMarks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nMark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce VC awards of the same color.
\n'),(39161,2176,406470,406471,'Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted to persons.
\n
\nEach Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all, either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).
\n
\nThe Accountor is the recordkeepor of Marks.
\n
\nMarks are gained and lost as follows:
\n
\n(+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark. If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark. If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks, and the author loses ten Red Marks.
\n
\n(+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report, the player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person deputised for that office while that player held that office during that month, in which case the deputising player gains one Green Mark.
\n
\n(+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark, except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.
\n
\n(-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one Blue Mark. When a concurring opinion is published, the prior judge loses a number of Blue Marks equal to its error rating.
\n
\n(+m) When, during the observance of Agora\'s unbirthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains 2N+1 magenta Marks (where N is Agora\'s age rounded down to the nearest integer), unless e previously gained Marks in this manner during the same unbirthday.
\n
\nOnly valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for gaining and losing Red Marks.
\n
\nMarks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the color is specified):
\n
\na) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC of that color.
\n
\nMark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce VC awards of the same color.
\n'),(39162,2177,406381,406421,' the Senate. Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list of all Senators.
\n
\n being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the most recent date on which an emergency session was called.
\n
\nDuring emergency session, any Senator 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. During emergency session, any Senator may end a filibuster on a proposal with 4 supporting Senators.
\n
\nA proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, and its voting period is not extended due to lack of quorum.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39163,2177,406421,406424,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n past. During emergency session, any Any Senator may end a filibuster on a proposal with 4 supporting Senators.
\n
\n contrary notwithstanding, and its voting period is not extended due to lack of quorum. notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39164,2177,406424,406425,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nDuring emergency session, any Senator 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 may end a filibuster on a proposal with 4 supporting Senators.
\n
\nA proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39165,2177,406425,496690,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\n 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 may CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4 supporting Senators.
\n
\nA proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39166,2177,496690,496951,' any Player first-class 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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\n any first-class 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.
\n
\nDuring 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.
\n
\nA proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39167,2177,496951,496952,'A Senator is any first-class 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.
\n
\n lasts for until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session terminates 21 days after being it was called. A Senator CAN terminate an emergency session without 3 Senate objections. Terminating an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor\'s report includes the dates when the most recent date on which an emergency session was called. called and terminated.
\n
\nThe 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 first-class 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.
\n
\nDuring 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.
\n
\nA proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39168,2177,496952,497254,'A Senator is any first-class 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.
\n
\nA 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 until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session terminates 21 days after it was called. A Senator CAN terminate an emergency session without 3 Senate objections. Terminating an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor\'s report includes the dates when the most recent emergency session was called and terminated.
\n
\nThe 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 first-class 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.
\n
\nDuring 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.
\n
\nAWhile a proposal that ends its voting period is in filibuster has a filibuster, its quorum of is the number of eligible voters plus 1, one, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39169,2177,497254,497344,' The collection set of all Senators is known as the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list of all Senators.
\n
\n 2 Senate Senator supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session terminates 21 days after it was called. A Senator CAN terminate an emergency session without 3 Senate Senator objections. Terminating an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor\'s report includes the dates when the most recent emergency session was called and terminated.
\n
\n instead, any a senator is a first-class player who is a member of the roll call is a senator. call. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of the most recent emergency session.
\n
\nDuring 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.
\n
\nWhile a proposal is in filibuster, its quorum is the number of eligible voters plus one, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts.
\n'),(39170,2178,406418,406503,'A member of a contract CAN identify the contract as a public contract by publishing its text with a notice of intent from the contract be a public contract. The notice of intent MUST consist of one or more of:
\n
\n(a) a clause in the contract identifying it as public;
\n
\n(b) a notice indicating unanimous consent of members that the contract be public;
\n
\n(c) a notice published without objection of its members, that the contract be public.
\n
\nIf the text of a potential contract is published by a person with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then it becomes public immediately upon becoming a contract.
\n
\n text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n'),(39171,2178,406503,406546,'A member of a contract CAN identify the public contract as is a public contract that has been identified as such, as specified by publishing its text with a notice of intent from the this rule. Any other contract be a public contract. The notice of intent MUST consist of one or more of: is private.
\n
\n(a)A member of a clause in the contract identifying CAN identify it as public; a public contract by publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n(b) a notice indicating unanimous consent of members that the(a) The contract be public; contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n(c)(b) The publication is accompanied by a notice published without objection notice, indicating unanimous consent of its members, that the contract be public.
\n
\nIf(c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published without objection of its members, that the contract be public.
\n
\nA partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and membership.
\n
\nIf the text of a potential contract is published by a person with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then it becomes is identified as a public immediately upon becoming contract when it becomes a contract.
\n
\nChanges in the text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39172,2178,406546,496945,'A public contract is a contract that has been identified as such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.
\n
\nA 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:
\n
\n(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n(b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published without objection of its members, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge.
\n
\nA partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and membership.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nChanges in the text or membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n January 2008 29 October 2008
\n'),(39173,2178,496945,496968,'A public contract is a contract that has been identified as such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.
\n
\nA member party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by publishing its text and membership, list of parties, provided that at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n of members, parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n its members, parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge.
\n
\n and membership. list of parties.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n or membership list of parties of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n16 January 2008 29 October 2008
\n'),(39174,2178,496968,497405,' rule. Any All other contract is contracts are private.
\n
\nA party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n(b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published without objection of its parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge.
\n
\nA partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nChanges in the text or list of parties of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n16 January 2008 29 October 2008
\n'),(39175,2178,497405,497445,'A public contract is a contract that has been identified as such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are private.
\n
\nA party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n(b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published without objection of its parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge.
\n
\nA partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nChanges in the text or list of parties of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n October 2008 2008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39176,2178,497445,460462,' rule. All Any other contracts are contract is private.
\n
\nA party member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties, membership, provided that at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n of parties, members, that the contract be public.
\n
\n its parties, members, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge.
\n
\nAA partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties. membership.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n or list of parties membership of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n October 2008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 2008
\n'),(39177,2178,460462,496923,''),(39178,2179,406499,497377,'Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.For each point axis:
\n
\nPoints area) <axis> Points is a fixed currency. The
\n
\nb) A player\'s <axis> coordinate (syn. <axis> score) is the number of <axis> points owned by a player e owns.
\n
\nThere are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi, where x is eir score. X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.
\n
\nOwnership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nA player with 100 orPlayers generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points may win can be
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n
\n
\nContestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract is a contest if and only if it has a contestmaster other than \'none\'. following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\nb) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster within the past seven days.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the game contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by announcing any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score rule, it is set IMPOSSIBLE to zero. flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nEach contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}.
\n
\nAn axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows, provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of multiple contests sharing an axis:
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its axes.
\n'),(39179,2179,497377,406536,'For each point axis:Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players.
\n
\na) <axis> Points isPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a fixed currency. player is eir score.
\n
\nb) A player\'s <axis> coordinate (syn. <axis> score)The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the number recordkeepor of <axis> points e owns. points.
\n
\nThere are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi, where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.
\n
\nOwnership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nPlayers generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n
\n
\nContestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\nA public contract is a contest if and only if it has a contestmaster other than \'none\'. following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\nb) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster within the past seven days.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nEach contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}.
\n
\nAn axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows, provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of multiple contests sharing an axis:
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its axes.
\n'),(39180,2179,406536,496937,' to players. players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The number of points owned by a player is eir score.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\n
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39181,2179,496937,497228,'Points areA binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its legal obligations onto a class subset of fixed assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning its parties, numbering at least two, collectively, is secured, then 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 point holdings are secured with its membership provided that it continues to meet the same power threshold. definition of a partnership.
\n
\nPoints are a currency. The numberA partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of points owned by a player the union of the the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in this definition, it is eir score.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor resolved by using the minimum basis sets that provide consistency. of points. A partnership that is a high-priority office, public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person. subject to the recordkeepor restrictions that no more than 5 points can be If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings, e may sentence one or more members of points.
\n
\n
\n
\n16 January 2008 the partnership for the crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or would not adequately apply responsibility.
\n'),(39182,2179,497228,497399,'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.For each point axis:
\n
\nA partnership\'s basisa) <axis> Points is a fixed currency.
\n
\nb) A player\'s <axis> coordinate (syn. <axis> score) is the set consisting of the union of the the bases number of each <axis> points e owns.
\n
\nThere are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi, where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.
\n
\nOwnership of its members. Where circularity occurs in this definition, it points is restricted to players. If winning is resolved by using secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the minimum basis sets that provide consistency. of points. A partnership that same power threshold.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is a public contract high-priority office, and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person. the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\nPlayers generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings, e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate sentence in transferred this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the partnership as a guide way to the devolution of sentencing but is not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or would not adequately apply responsibility. any one player, nor from any one player, per week.
\n
\n
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39183,2179,497399,497384,'For each point axis:
\n
\na) <axis> Points is a fixed currency.
\n
\nb) A player\'s <axis> coordinate (syn. <axis> score) is the number of <axis> points e owns.
\n
\nThere are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi, where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.
\n
\nOwnership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor of points.
\n
\n can be transferred this way to any one player, nor from any one player, per week. be
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n
\n
\n16 January 2008
\nContestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is not \'none\'.
\n
\nThe contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\nb) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster within the past seven days.
\n
\nc) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n'),(39184,2179,497384,497302,'For each point axis:
\n
\na) <axis> Points isPoints are a class of fixed currency. assets. Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nb) A player\'s <axis> coordinate (syn. <axis> score) is thePoints are a currency. The number of <axis> points e owns.
\n
\nThere are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi, where x is eir X coordinate and y owned by a player is eir Y coordinate.
\n
\nOwnership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.
\n
\nThe Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor score. of points.
\n
\nPlayers generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n
\nContestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.
\n
\n
\nContestmaster is aA public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contest if and only if it has a contestmaster is not other than \'none\'.
\n
\nThe The Scorekeepor\'s report contains the contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the each contest. following are true:
\n
\na) The contract is private.
\n
\n contestmaster within the past seven days.
\n
\nc) b) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of cause a contract player to a be contestmaster of more than one contest. player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)
\n
\nOtherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster.
\n
\nNotwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped to \'none\'.
\n
\nChanges to contestmaster are secured.
\n
\nThe total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are active first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\nThe total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are active first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.
\n
\nFor each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that time.
\n
\n
\nUpon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all 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. All other players have each of eir coordinates set to floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N is eir previous score and S is the Score Index. Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index with Agoran consent.
\n
\nIf no players have won by High Score in the past four months, then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support. When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in overtime when someone wins by High Score.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n
\n
\nA category concerning interaction with outside forces, including other nomics.
\n'),(39185,2180,406574,432308,'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.
\n
\nA 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.
\n
\nThe minimum number of parties for aA location is zero. requires at least zero parties.
\n'),(39186,2181,432213,432379,' is an a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.
\n
\n different recordkeepor. recordkeepor. While there are no such assets, the Accountor has no report.
\n'),(39187,2181,432379,432405,'The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.
\n
\nThe Accountor\'s report includes a list of classes of assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors.
\n
\nThe Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do whose backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor. While there are no such assets, the Accountor has no report. recordkeepor.
\n'),(39188,2181,432405,496714,'The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.
\n
\nThe Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do not specify a different recordkeepor. If any such assets exist, then the Accountor\'s report includes a list of classes of assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors. documents; otherwise, the Accountor has no report.
\n
\nThe Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.
\n'),(39189,2181,496714,496803,'The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.
\n
\nThe Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do not specify a different recordkeepor. If any such assets exist, then the Accountor\'s report includes a list of all classes of assets, and their backing documents; otherwise, the Accountor has no report. documents and recordkeepors.
\n
\nThe Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.
\n'),(39190,2181,496803,496943,' of miscellaneous classes of assets.
\n
\nThe Accountor\'s report includes a list of all classes of assets, and their backing documents and recordkeepors.
\n
\nThe Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.
\n'),(39191,2181,496943,496948,'The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of classes of assets.
\n
\n all public classes of assets, assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors.
\n'),(39192,2181,496948,497417,'The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of classes of assets.
\n
\nThe Accountor\'s report includes a list of all public classes of assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors.
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39193,2185,496790,497455,'Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly, Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39194,2186,496687,496913,' is secured. secured, lest a coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.
\n
\nA win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39195,2186,496913,497142,'Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined by rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.
\n
\nA win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement.
\n
\nWhen 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.
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\nWhile all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition, that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39196,2186,497142,497343,' Conditions exist only as are conditions defined as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.
\n
\nA win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement.
\n
\n game. This is the only way to win the game, The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\nWhile all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition, that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39197,2186,497343,497387,'Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.
\n
\nA win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement.
\n
\nWhen one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\nWhile all but one a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, that player e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition.
\n
\n
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39198,2186,497387,497478,'Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.
\n
\nA win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement.
\n
\nWhen one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nWhen used as a period of time, a "game" is the period of time between one instant at which at least one person won the game, and the next such instant. The "first game" was the period of time prior to the first instant at which a person won the game.
\n
\nEach 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.
\n
\nWhile a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition.
\n
\n
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39199,2187,406537,432414,'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.
\n
\n procedure: Each player\'s All those players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N is eir previous score and S is set the Score Index.
\n
\nThe Score Index is an integer from 0 to 0. 5, and part of the Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index without objection.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39200,2187,432414,432435,'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.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.
\n
\n Index without objection. with Agoran consent.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39201,2187,432435,496830,'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.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.
\n
\nThe Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index with Agoran consent.
\n
\nIf no players have won by High Score in the past four months, then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support. When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in overtime when someone wins by High Score.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39202,2187,496830,497337,' score of at least 100 x + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.
\n
\n have each of eir scores coordinates set to floor(N*S/10), floor(P*S/10), where N P is eir previous score coordinate along that axis and S is the Score Index.
\n
\nThe Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index with Agoran consent.
\n
\nIf no players have won by High Score in the past four months, then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support. When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in overtime when someone wins by High Score.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39203,2187,497337,497452,'Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have each of eir coordinates set to floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that axis and S is the Score Index.
\n
\nThe Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index with Agoran consent.
\n
\nIf no players have won by High Score in the past four months, then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support. When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in overtime when someone wins by High Score.
\n
\n January 2008 2008 woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39204,2187,497452,497230,' all 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. Score. All other players have each of eir coordinates set to floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N is eir previous score and S is the Score Index. Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index with Agoran consent.
\n
\nCleanup procedure: All thoseIf no players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have each of eir coordinates set to floor(P*S/10), where P won by High Score in the past four months, then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support. When Agora is eir previous coordinate along in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking points that axis and S is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes double the Score Index. amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in overtime when someone wins by High Score.
\n
\nThe Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index with Agoran consent.16 January 2008
\n
\nIf no players have won by High Score in the past four months, then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support. When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in overtime when someone wins by High Score.
\n
\n16 January 2008 woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including other nomics.
\n'),(39205,2188,497273,497203,'Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a winA player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to one or more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\n16 January 2008 be democratic.
\n'),(39206,2191,406540,432306,' such. The minimum number of parties for a pledge is one.
\n
\nA A pledge CAN be modified or terminated by any party without objection. requires at least one party.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n'),(39207,2191,432306,460464,' one party. pledge requires at least one party.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n'),(39208,2191,460464,497447,' a public contract identifying itself as such. A pledge requires at least one party. pledge requires at least one party.
\n
\nAn 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.
\n
\nIf a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied obligations on its current parties, and will not do so in the future in its current form, then any person CAN terminate it by announcing that it is obsolete.
\n
\n2008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39209,2192,406542,432380,'The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for building the Monster.
\n
\nAt least once each week, the Mad Scientist SHALL:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected rule.
\n
\nc) 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").
\n
\n this one). one). This proposal counts as the Mad Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.
\n'),(39210,2192,432380,432386,'The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for building the Monster.
\n
\nAt least once each week, theThe Mad Scientist SHALL: Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the following tasks, in order:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected rule.
\n
\nc) 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").
\n
\nd) 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). This proposal counts as the Mad Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.
\n'),(39211,2192,432386,496781,' the Monster. Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster fulfills all of its duties.
\n
\nThe Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the following tasks, in order:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected rule.
\n
\nc) 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").
\n
\nd) 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). This proposal counts as the Mad Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.
\n'),(39212,2192,496781,496921,'The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster fulfills all of its duties.
\n
\nThe Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the following tasks, in order:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected rule.
\n
\nc) 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").
\n
\n this one). This proposal counts as the Mad Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted. one).
\n'),(39213,2192,496921,496928,'The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster fulfills all of its duties.
\n
\nThe Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the following tasks, in order:
\n
\na) 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.
\n
\nb) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected rule.
\n
\nc) 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").
\n
\nd) 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).
\n
\ne) Randomly select exactly one paragraph from the rule "The Monster", other than its first paragraph.
\n
\nf) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of that rule, and interest index 0, to remove the selected text from that rule.
\n'),(39214,2193,406541,432323,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n'),(39215,2193,432323,432330,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n'),(39216,2193,432330,432361,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n'),(39217,2193,432361,432396,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n'),(39218,2193,432396,432410,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n'),(39219,2193,432410,432425,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n'),(39220,2193,432425,432426,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n'),(39221,2193,432426,432428,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n'),(39222,2193,432428,496780,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster.
\n'),(39223,2193,496780,496831,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\n other Monster. Monster. A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent. The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected. described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nalleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case. sentencing in that case. Agoran Monsters begin at midnight UTC on Monday.
\n'),(39224,2193,496831,496832,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster. A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent. The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected. described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\n case. Agoran Monsters begin at midnight UTC on Monday. Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled
\n'),(39225,2193,496832,496853,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\n Monstrous Consent. The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected. described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected. Consent.
\n
\nallegingThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nWhenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case. sentencing in that case. Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled
\n
\nThe eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its Monsterising period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the chokey at that time.
\n'),(39226,2193,496853,496857,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster. A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent.
\n
\nThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nWhenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case. Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled
\n
\nThe eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its Monsterising period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\nSome types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff. When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.
\n'),(39227,2193,496857,496859,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster. A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent.
\n
\nThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nWhenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case. Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled
\n
\nThe eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its Monsterising period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\nSome types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff. When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.
\n'),(39228,2193,496859,496865,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\n Monster. A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with A
\n
\nA player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent.
\n
\nThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nWhenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case. Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled
\n'),(39229,2193,496865,496874,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster.
\n
\nA player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent.
\n
\nThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nWhenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case. Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled
\n
\n
\nThe eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its Monsterising period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\nSome types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff. When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.
\n'),(39230,2193,496874,496891,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster.
\n
\nA player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent.
\n
\nThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\n that case. Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled
\n case.
\n
\nThe eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its Monsterising period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\nSome types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff. When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.
\n'),(39231,2193,496891,496893,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster.
\n
\nA player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent.
\n
\nThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nWhenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case.
\n
\nAny Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and
\n
\n(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired
\n
\nThe eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its Monsterising period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\nSome types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff. When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.
\n'),(39232,2193,496893,496930,'Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
\n
\nA public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.
\n
\nThere is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their category.
\n
\nMonsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.
\n
\nWhen the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the Monster-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere:
\n
\n(a) Initiation of the Monster. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the Monster.
\n
\nUpon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation.
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related cases that either require a Monster or have at least one applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.
\n
\n"First-class Monster" means a Monster of a biological nature.
\n
\nThe Monster\'s adopted motto is "Le monstre n\'est pas une fontaine."
\n
\nThe initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be initiated.
\n
\nIf an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to have any other Monster.
\n
\nA player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with Monstrous Consent.
\n
\nThe holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.
\n
\nWhenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case.
\n
\nAny Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if:
\n
\n(a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and
\n
\n(b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired
\n
\nThe eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its Monsterising period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the chokey at that time.
\n
\nSome types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff. When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.
\n
\n____ _ /| 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 \\_/ \\ | \\_ _| _ _ | | \\__/ _/0\\/ \\_ \\___=_ ___| .-. .-` \\_/\\0/ \'-. MANUBOURNE -> \\/ /:::\\ / ,_________, \\ /\\:::/ \\ \'. (:::/ `\'-; /\\__ \\ `-\'`\\ \'._ `"\'"\'\\__ \\ | | `\'-. \\ `)-=-=( `, | | / jgs \\ `-"` `"-` / \\_/ <- HOBART
\n'),(39233,2194,406551,406582,'Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.
\n
\nEach Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency.
\n
\nThe Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.
\n
\nNotes are gained as follows:
\n
\n 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:
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at least one weekly report during that week gains an E Note.
\n
\n(Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb Note.
\n
\n(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.
\n
\n(4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note.
\n
\n(C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.
\n
\nNotes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:
\n
\n(1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.
\n
\n(4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch.
\n
\n(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.
\n'),(39234,2196,432290,496734,'An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision with an adoption index is ordinary by default.
\n
\n index, the message by which it is initiated MUST include then the following information: are essential parameters:
\n
\na) Its adoption index. b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.
\n
\nFor any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.
\n'),(39235,2197,432304,432397,'A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:
\n
\n(a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a party to the contract;
\n
\n(b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;
\n
\n(c) amending a contract; and
\n
\n(d) terminating a contract
\n
\n or the its permissability permissibility cannot be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then that change has no effect.
\n'),(39236,2197,432397,497443,'A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:
\n
\n(a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a party to the contract;
\n
\n(b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;
\n
\n(c) amending a contract; and
\n
\n(d) terminating a contract
\n
\nIf a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then that change has no effect.
\n
\n2008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39237,2197,497443,496888,'A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:
\n
\n(a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a party to the contract;
\n
\n(b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;
\n
\n(c) amending a contract; and
\n
\n(d) terminating a contract
\n
\nIf a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then that change has no effect.
\n
\n2008 Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 20092008
\n'),(39238,2197,496888,496846,''),(39239,2198,432305,432398,'If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.
\n
\nIf a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.
\n
\n the dependant dependent action is resolved, no party blocks the change by announcement.
\n'),(39240,2198,432398,496837,'IfContract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.
\n
\nIf a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.
\n
\n without Objection if, before the dependent action is resolved, no Objection. Any party blocks to the change by announcement. contract CAN object to this dependent action.
\n'),(39241,2198,496837,497407,'Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.
\n
\n it, than then any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.
\n
\nIf the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two, then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this dependent action.
\n'),(39242,2198,497407,497357,'Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.
\n
\n it, then than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement. it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement. announcement. If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two, then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this dependent action.
\n
\nIf the minimum number
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nA public contract is a contract that has been identified as such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are private.
\n
\nA party of parties for a contract is CAN identify it as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least two, then Contract Changes CAN be made to one of the following is true:
\n
\n(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n(b) The publication is accompanied by agreement between all a notice, indicating unanimous consent of parties, that the parties to contract be public.
\n
\n(c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published without objection of its parties, that the contract. Otherwise, any party to contract be public.
\n
\n(d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge.
\n
\nA partnership CAN make Contract Changes to identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties.
\n
\nIf the text of a potential contract is published with a clear indication that the contract without Objection. Any party to will be public when it forms, then it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a contract.
\n
\nChanges in the text or list of parties of a public contract CAN object to this dependent action. do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n16 January 2008 29 October 2008
\n'),(39243,2198,497357,497226,'Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.
\n
\nIf a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement. it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement. If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two, then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this dependent action.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nAA public contract is a contract that has been identified as such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are private.
\n
\nA party of a contract CAN identify it such, as a public contract specified by this rule. Any other contract is private. publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least one of the following is true:
\n
\n(a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.
\n
\n(b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published without objection of its parties, that the contract be public.
\n
\n(d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge.
\n
\nA partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\nChanges in the text or list of parties of a public contract do not become effective until they are published.
\n
\n16 January 2008 29 October 2008
\n
\n
\n
\nThe Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of contracts.
\n
\nThe parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'),(39244,2199,432309,496689,'Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of Ribbon is a currency.
\n
\nThe Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.
\n
\nRibbons are gained as follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.
\n
\n e violated a requirement failed to submit a report perform an official duty within a time limit. limit during that month.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains an Ultraviolet Ribbon.
\n
\n(+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.
\n
\n(+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n'),(39245,2199,496689,497144,' assets. Changes If winning is secured, then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured. secured with the same power threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of Ribbon is a currency.
\n
\nThe Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.
\n
\nRibbons are gained as follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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 failed to perform an official duty within a time limit during that month.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains an Ultraviolet Ribbon.
\n
\n(+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.
\n
\n(+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n'),(39246,2199,497144,497318,'Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. If winning is secured, then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured with the same power threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of Ribbon is a currency.
\n
\nThe Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.
\n
\nRibbons are gained as follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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 failed to perform an official duty within a time limit during that month.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n another first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White Ribbon.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains an Ultraviolet Ribbon.
\n
\n(+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.
\n
\n(+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n'),(39247,2199,497318,497411,'Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. If winning is secured, then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured with the same power threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.
\n
\nEach Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of Ribbon is a currency.
\n
\nThe Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.
\n
\nRibbons are gained as follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:
\n
\n(+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.
\n
\n(+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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 failed to perform an official duty within a time limit during that month.
\n
\n(+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\n(+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 player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White Ribbon.
\n
\n(+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.
\n
\n(+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains an Ultraviolet Ribbon.
\n
\n(+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.
\n
\n(+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon.
\n
\n(+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.
\n
\nIf 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.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39248,2200,432338,432413,'A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable in finite time.
\n
\nA nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.
\n
\nA foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name of "Agora" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.
\n
\n is registered as a player.
\n'),(39249,2200,432413,497231,'A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable in finite time.
\n
\nA nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.
\n
\n nomic other than this one, even if it has the same name as this one. A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name of "Agora" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.
\n
\nA provinceAn embassy is a protectorate registered partnership designated as representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and
\n
\n
\nEvery 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 player. 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.
\n
\nThe ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other suitable locations.
\n'),(39250,2200,497231,497361,'A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable in finite time.
\n
\nA nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.
\n
\n this one. A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name of "Agora" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic. one.
\n
\nAn embassyA province is a registered partnership designated as representing protectorate that is a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and player.
\n
\n
\nEvery month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wikiAn embassy 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, registered partnership designated as representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and that all links on the page point to extant pages rules of that are correctly described. The ambassador may add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.
\n
\nThe ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other suitable locations. nomic.
\n'),(39251,2200,497361,497453,'A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable in finite time.
\n
\nA nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.
\n
\nA foreign nomic is a nomic other than this one, even if it has the same name as this one.
\n
\nA province is a protectorate that is a player.
\n
\nAn embassy is a registered partnership designated as representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and the rules of that nomic.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39252,2201,496725,497473,'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:
\n
\n legal interpretation. interpretation. The original document is never ratified due to this rule, the rest of this rule notwithstanding.
\n
\nb) 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.
\n
\nmust explicitly identify the document, either individually
\n'),(39253,2202,496724,497383,'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.
\n
\nRatification Without Objection CANNOT cause the repeal, amendment, enactment, or mutation of any Rule, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n'),(39254,2205,432387,497277,'Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled) relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:
\n
\n1) The initiator, when initiating the case.
\n
\n2) For a criminal case, the defendant, during the pre-trial phase.
\n
\n3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question, during the pre-trial phase.
\n
\n4) The judge, when delivering judgement.
\n
\nMatters of legal interpretation SHOULD be classified as arguments; matters of fact SHOULD be classified as evidence.
\n'),(39255,2206,496793,497458,'A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.
\n
\nThe Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable foreign assets.
\n
\nPlayers are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39256,2207,497236,497459,'A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39257,2211,496808,496836,'The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of castes.
\n
\nThe Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player\'s caste by announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case finds that e has flipped a Player\'s caste illegally (e.g. not as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the appropriate correct value as soon as possible.
\n
\nIf a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts and the Grand Poobah\'s ability to correct the issue, unless they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts.
\n
\nAt the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order, at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet been chosen during the current procedure:
\n
\n1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling or exceeding the new caste:
\n
\na) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta
\n
\n2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.
\n
\nb->c) While there are more than two Betas, flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma c->d) While there are more than three Gammas, flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta d->e) While there are more than four Deltas, flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon
\n'),(39258,2211,496836,496841,'The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of castes.
\n
\nThe Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player\'s caste by announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case finds that e has flipped a Player\'s caste illegally (e.g. not as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the appropriate correct value as soon as possible.
\n
\nIf a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts and the Grand Poobah\'s ability to correct the issue, unless they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts.
\n
\nAt the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order, at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet been chosen during the current procedure:
\n
\n1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling or exceeding the new caste:
\n
\na) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta
\n
\n2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.
\n
\nb->c) While there are more than two Betas, flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma c->d) While there are more than three Gammas, flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta d->e) While there are more than four Deltas, flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon
\n
\nDuring the seven days immediately prior to the start of a month, the Speaker CAN publish an Honors List, indicating a list of players other than emself for promotion. If such a list is published, the Grand Poobah SHALL, during the Promotions step above, make as many legal promotions from this list as possible before making any other promotions.
\n'),(39259,2211,496841,497475,'The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of castes.
\n
\nThe Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player\'s caste by announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case finds that e has flipped a Player\'s caste illegally (e.g. not as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the appropriate correct value as soon as possible.
\n
\nIf a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts and the Grand Poobah\'s ability to correct the issue, unless they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts.
\n
\nAt the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order, at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet been chosen during the current procedure:
\n
\n1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling or exceeding the new caste:
\n
\na) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta
\n
\n2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.
\n
\nb->c)a->b) While there is more than one Alpha, flip an Alpha\'s caste to Beta b->c) While there are more than two Betas, flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma c->d) While there are more than three Gammas, flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta d->e) While there are more than four Deltas, flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon
\n
\nDuring the seven days immediately prior to the start of a month, the Speaker CAN publish an Honors List, indicating a list of players other than emself for promotion. If such a list is published, the Grand Poobah SHALL, during the Promotions step above, make as many legal promotions from this list as possible before making any other promotions.
\n'),(39260,2212,497330,497284,'A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by the rulesBeing in conjunction with a judgement exile is self-ratifying, provided that that judgement remains in effect. Such a judgement may be inappropriate due to the content of this declaration, rules to Losing Condition.
\n
\nBeing in the contrary notwithstanding. chokey is a Losing Condition.
\n
\n16 January 2008
\n'),(39261,2215,496911,496953,''),(39262,2217,496940,497305,'Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP, with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN flip an elected office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under the following circumstances:
\n
\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes such a change during the current quarter.
\n
\n have (or is created without) an active holder, or after an election for the office ends and the office fails to have still lacks an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during that week (month). holder.
\n
\nThese requirements are also waived if another player initiates an election for the office.
\n'),(39263,2217,497305,497462,'StabilityWithin a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after an elected office switch, tracked by ceases to have (or is created without) an active holder, or after an election for the IADoP, with values Temporal (default) office ends and Perpetual. Any player CAN flip the office still lacks an elected office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual active holder, the IADoP SHALL initiate an election for that office. This requirement is waived if the office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves comes to have an active holder, or if another player initiates an election for the office.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have (or is created without) an active holder, or after an election for the office ends and the office still lacks an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder.
\n
\nThese requirements are also waived if another player initiates an election for the office.woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39264,2217,497462,497422,'WithinStability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP, with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN flip an elected office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.
\n
\nThe IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under the following circumstances:
\n
\na) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter.
\n
\nb) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after an elected the office ceases to have (or is created without) an active holder, or after an election for the office ends and the office still lacks an active holder, the IADoP SHALL initiate an election for that office. holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder, or holder.
\n
\nThese requirements are also waived if another player initiates an election for the office.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39265,2220,496965,496963,''),(39266,2221,497240,497467,'The RulekeeporAny player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or more spelling and/or grammar corrections; the rule is amended as specified.
\n'),(39267,2224,497296,497195,' its author 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. submission, or otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be proportional to its complexity.
\n
\n"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.
\n'),(39268,2225,497298,497206,'EachA judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial If a judicial case has (other than an interest index, which appeal case) has not had any judge assigned to it, then: At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable a) Its initiator CAN be set retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case. At any time, each judicial question is either open (default), b) If its initiator at previously initiated five or more cases during the time of initiation, same Agoran week as that case, then it is an excess case, and CAN be changed by any player without 2 objections, or by the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar without 3 objections. CAN refuse it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case. When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
\n'),(39269,2225,497206,497274,' judicial If case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules. Defining a judicial case (other than an appeal case) has not had any judge assigned to it, then: At question is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7.
\n
\nAt any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be (default) or applicable. This is not a judicial case. At persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously.
\n
\nAt any time, each judicial question is either open (default), b) If its initiator previously initiated five suspended, or more cases during the same Agoran week as that case, then it has exactly one judgement. This is an excess case, and a persistent status that changes only according to the Clerk rules. The possible types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the Courts CAN refuse it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be type of question.
\n
\nWhen a judicial case. When question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case When has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible. A judge SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge\'s discretion.
\n
\nWhen a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case judge has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the judge assigns a judgement to it first.
\n'),(39270,2226,497300,497282,'Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked byWhen the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices.
\n
\nA Courts assigns a player is poorly qualified to as judge of two or more judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank.
\n
\nA consecutively in the same announcement, that player CAN flip eir judicial rank only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules to any value by announcement.
\n
\nWhen a judgement is overruled on appeal, if the prior judge\'s rank is higher than 1, then it is decreased by 1, and e CANNOT increase it for 30 days afterward (the rest of contrary notwithstanding. The CotC SHOULD NOT do this rule notwithstanding).
\n
\n"District", "Circuit", and "Supreme" unless those cases are synonymous with judicial ranks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. closely related in their subject matter.
\n'),(39271,2228,497324,497398,'Rests are a fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Conductor. The creation and destruction of Rests is secured with a power threshold of 1.7, a person generally CANNOT destroy rests except as permitted by Rules explicitly stating methods by which rests in particular CAN be destroyed.
\n
\nOwnership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons. If, in the absence of this restriction, a number (N) of Rests would be created in the ownership of a non-first-class person, then for each member of that person\'s basis, N Rests are created in that member\'s possession.
\n
\nA player CAN spend two Notes in order to destroy a Rest owned by a player e specifies.
\n
\nA first-class player CAN create Rests in eir own possession by announcement.
\n
\n14 December 2008
\n'),(39272,2228,497398,497402,' fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Conductor. The asset. The creation and destruction of Rests is secured with a power threshold of 1.7, a person generally CANNOT destroy rests except as permitted by Rules explicitly stating methods by which rests in particular CAN be destroyed. destroyed.
\n
\nThe Insulator is an office, and the recordkeepor of Rests.
\n
\nOwnership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons. If, in the absence of this restriction, a number (N) of Rests would be created in the ownership of a non-first-class person, then for each member of that person\'s basis, N Rests are created in that member\'s possession.
\n
\nA player CAN spend two Notes in order to destroy a Rest owned by a player e specifies.
\n
\nA first-class player CAN create Rests in eir own possession by announcement.
\n
\n14 December 2008
\n'),(39273,2229,497325,497415,'Owning one or more Rests is a Losing Condition.
\n
\nWhile a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend Notes except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence over any other rule.
\n
\nWhile a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement. A person who owns at least 6 Rests, or where every member of eir basis owns 6 Rests, CANNOT register, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
\n
\nA person who has one or more rests but is not a player is a Fugitive. The Herald\'s report shall include a list of all Fugitives and the number of Rests they possess. At the beginning of each month, half of each Fugitive\'s rests (rounded down) are destroyed.
\n
\n December 2008 2008 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39274,2230,497328,497376,'A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that Crime.
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.
\n
\nNeither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is Neither a Ticket\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.
\n
\n a A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested if a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it publication of an Uncontested Ticket, any player CAN make it it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Ticket becomes incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity).
\n
\nA Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is If a notice remains uncontested for four days, a number of Rests of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes of the violated Rule rounded up. If the notice becomes contested after four days, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere. 14 December 2008
\n'),(39275,2230,497376,497395,'A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that Crime.
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.
\n
\nNeither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is Neither a Ticket\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.
\n
\nA valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it publication of an Uncontested Ticket, any player CAN make it it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Ticket becomes incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity).
\n
\n is If published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN cause a notice remains uncontested for four days, Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes of the violated Rule Rule, rounded up. If the notice becomes contested after four days, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere. 14 December 2008
\n'),(39276,2230,497395,497396,'A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that Crime.
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.
\n
\n is Neither a Ticket\'s incorrectness false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether its allegation is the punishment resulting from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.
\n
\n it publication of an Uncontested Ticket, any Contested by announcement; a player CAN make it SHOULD do so if e believes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Ticket becomes Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity).
\n
\nA Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes of the violated Rule, rounded up. If the notice becomes contested after four days, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere. 14 December 2008
\n'),(39277,2230,497396,497465,' (d) The name of If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the Rules (where N is a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged breach, where N is then the positive integer specified in name of that Crime and the Rules for value of N; otherwise, the Power of the Rule that Crime. was allegedly broken.
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.
\n
\nNeither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.
\n
\nA valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity).
\n
\n becomes of the violated Rule, rounded up. If the notice becomes contested after four days, Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere. 14
\n
\n14 December 2008 2008 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39278,2230,497465,497466,'A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N; otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.
\n
\nNeither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.
\n
\nA valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity).
\n
\nAIf a Notice that is still Uncontested and was published at least four days after ago, any player CAN cause it is published automatically becomes to become Closed instead. by announcement. Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.
\n
\n14 December 2008 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39279,2230,497466,497471,' Violation (with N support, where N is the number of valid Notices of Violation e previously published during the same week, or by announcement if N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N; otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.
\n
\nNeither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.
\n
\nA valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity).
\n
\nIf a Notice is Uncontested and was published at least four days ago, any player CAN cause it to become Closed by announcement. Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.
\n
\n14 December 2008 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39280,2230,497471,497477,'A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation (with N support, where N is the number of valid Notices of Violation e previously published during the same week, or by announcement if N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N; otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.
\n
\nNeither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.
\n
\n the Clerk of the Courts Insulator SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s Such an announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.
\n
\nA valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity).
\n
\nIf a Notice is Uncontested and was published at least four days ago, any player CAN cause it to become Closed by announcement. Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.
\n
\n14 December 2008 ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39281,2230,497477,497215,'A player MAY publishCriminal cases are a Notice subclass of Violation (with N support, where N judicial cases. Any There is the number of valid Notices of Violation e previously published during the same week, or by announcement if N is zero) alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered a valid notice subclass of violation, judicial case known as a criminal case. A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity culpability of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is a positive integer) particular person, known as being associated with the defendant, for an alleged breach, then the name breach of that Crime the rules, and to punish the value guilty. A criminal case CAN, with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a member of N; otherwise, the Power basis of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of the Rule that was allegedly broken. following:
\n
\nKnowingly issuing a Noticea) The identity of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel. defendant.
\n
\nA Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules.b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nNeither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting from leaving it Uncontested wouldc) A specific action (which may be manifestly unfair according a failure to perform another action) by which the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity. defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nAs soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Insulator SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such an announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does notd) The messages (if any) in itself certify the correctness of which the allegation. action occurred.
\n
\nA valid NoticeThe initiation of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after criminal case begins its pre-trial phase. In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform the publication defendant of an Uncontested Notice, 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 player time during the pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN make it Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes Contested upon end the initiation of a judicial case questioning its incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely pre-trial phase by questioning its validity). announcement.
\n
\nIf a Notice is UncontestedThe initiator and was published at least four days ago, any player CAN cause it each member of the defendant\'s basis are unqualified to become Closed by announcement. Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em be assigned as Accused to become Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number judge of Rests are created in the possession of case. During the Accused equal to pre-trial phase, the power defendant CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the violated Rule, rounded up. case, by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused. A criminal case has a Closed notice becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere. question on culpability, which is applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
\n
\n14 December 2008 ais523), 23 January 2009* GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have violated the specified rule
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* 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 Accused is question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in effect.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are: Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff. When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.
\n
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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 as soon as possible 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. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once.
\n
\n* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time limit is specified).
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) 29 July 2008
\n'),(39282,2230,497215,497313,'Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any 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, with 2 Support, 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:
\n
\na) The identity of the defendant.
\n
\nb) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.
\n
\nc) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.
\n
\nd) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.
\n
\nThe 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.
\n
\nThe 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 call for judgement. The applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
\n
\n* GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated
\n
\n judgement (other than ALREADY TRIED) has already been reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the same rule, and substantially the same alleged act
\n
\n* UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have violated the specified rule
\n
\n* INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the alleged act
\n
\n* 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
\n
\n* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule
\n
\n* EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as that alleged
\n
\n* 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 Accused is question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in effect.
\n
\nThe valid sentences are: Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff. When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:
\n
\n1) It is still in effect.
\n
\n2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.
\n
\n3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the suspension.)
\n
\nThe CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.
\n
\n
\n* DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust. Has no effect.
\n
\n* 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 as soon as possible 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. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of 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.
\n
\n* FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once.
\n
\n* COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time limit is specified).
\n
\n* 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.
\n
\n* 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, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by announcement.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n(unattributed) 29 July 2008
\n'),(39283,2231,497333,497223,'The set of patent titles defined in this rule constitute the Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic; the titles may be collectively referred to as "Heroic titles" and a Bearer of a Heroic title as a Hero.
\n
\nHeroic titles are Agora\'s premier titles of distinction, and may be awarded to persons for meritorious service only by a proposal of power 3 or greater. Heroic titles SHOULD NOT be revoked. Heroes are entitled to use the abbreviation of eir title as postnomial letters in Agora communications and reports.
\n
\nThe Heroic titles in decreasing precedence are:
\n
\nGrand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title may be awarded to any person for the most exemplary meritorious service to Agora or to the game of Nomic at large. As this title is the highest honourA category concerning binding agreements that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to can be treated right good forever.
\n
\nHero of Agora Nomic (HAN) -- This title may be awarded to any person for outstanding meritorious service to Agora above and beyond the call of duty. adjudicated within this nomic.
\n'),(39284,2232,497385,497450,'Each contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}.
\n
\nAn axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows, provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of multiple contests sharing an axis:
\n
\na) by any player without 3 objections, or
\n
\nb) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its axes.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39285,2233,497335,497451,'For each of a contest\'s axes, where N is the number of its parties that were active first-class players at the beginning of the week:
\n
\na) A contest CAN award a total of 5N <axis> points per week. Its contestmaster CAN award points (up to this total) to its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as explicitly described in its contract.
\n
\nb) A contest CAN revoke a total of 2N <axis> points per week. Its contestmaster CAN revoke such points (up to this total) from its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as explicitly described in its contract.
\n
\nwoggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
\n'),(39286,2236,497390,497476,'The following committees exist, with the following charter positions:
\n
\na) Committee on Rules (Rulekeepor, Promotor, Assessor, Grand Poobah, Speaker, Anarchist)
\n
\nb) Committee on Administration (all high-priority officers)
\n
\nc) Committee on the Judiciary (Clerk of the Courts, all first-class players whose judicial rank is Supreme and whose posture is standing or sitting)
\n
\n (Justiciar, Insulator, all first-class players whose hawkishness is hanging and whose posture is standing or sitting)
\n
\nd) Committee on Finance (Accountor, all recordkeepors of rule-backed assets)
\n
\ne) Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Notary, all partnerships, Liaison of each subsidized contract)
\n
\nf) Committee on Indian Affairs (Scorekeepor, all contestmasters)
\n
\ng) Committee on Foreign Relations (Speaker, Ambassador, all Embassies)
\n
\nWhile an active player holds one or more charter positions for a committee, e is a charter member of that committee. When a charter member of a committee ceases to hold any charter positions for that committee, or ceases to be an active player, e ceases to be a member of that committee.
\n
\nWhile a committee\'s number of charter members (CM) is less than five, a non-member CAN spend any 5-CM of eir Notes forming consecutive tones of a pentatonic scale to become a non-charter member of that committee. While a committee\'s number of members is more than five, its non-charter member that has been one for the longest continuous period of time ceases to be a member.
\n
\nThe IADoP\'s report includes the membership of each committee.
\n'),(39287,2236,497476,497268,'The following committees exist, with the following charter positions:
\n
\na) Committee on Rules (Rulekeepor, Promotor, Assessor, Grand Poobah, Speaker, Anarchist)
\n
\nb) Committee on Administration (all high-priority officers)
\n
\nc) Committee on the Judiciary (Clerk of the Courts, all first-class players whose judicial rank is Supreme and whose posture is standing or sitting)
\n
\nd) Committee on Crime (Justiciar, Insulator, all first-class players whose hawkishness Assessor is hanging and whose posture is standing or sitting)
\n
\nd) Committee on Finance (Accountor, all recordkeepors of rule-backed assets)
\n
\ne) Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Notary, all partnerships, Liaison of each subsidized contract)
\n
\nf) Committee on Indian Affairs (Scorekeepor, all contestmasters)
\n
\ng) Committee on Foreign Relations (Speaker, Ambassador, all Embassies)
\n
\nWhile an active player holds one or more charter positions for a committee, e is a charter member of that committee. When a charter member of a committee ceases to hold any charter positions for that committee, or ceases to be an active player, e ceases to be a member of that committee.
\n
\nWhile a committee\'s number of charter members (CM) is less than five, a non-member CAN spend any 5-CM of eir Notes forming consecutive tones of a pentatonic scale to become a non-charter member of that committee. While a committee\'s number of members is more than five, office; its non-charter member that has been one holder is responsible for the longest continuous period of time ceases to be a member.
\n
\nThe IADoP\'s report includes the membership collecting votes and keeping track of each committee. related properties.
\n'),(39288,2237,497392,497358,'SubsidyThe Notary is a public contract switch with values Unsubsidized (default) and Subsidized. an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of contracts.
\n
\nLiaison isThe parties to a subsidized public contract switch with values null SHALL keep the Notary informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report includes a list of all roles defined by public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.
\n
\nThe 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. contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise, except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the explicit consent of all parties.
\n
\nThe Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.
\n
\n
\n
\n2008
\n'); /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `diffs` ENABLE KEYS */; UNLOCK TABLES; -- -- Table structure for table `rules` -- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `rules`; CREATE TABLE `rules` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL auto_increment, `source` enum('zefram','rcs') NOT NULL default 'zefram', `rcs_revnum` varchar(255) default NULL, `rule_id` int(11) NOT NULL default '0', `annotation` blob, `title` blob, `title_255` varchar(255) default NULL, `rtime` bigint(20) unsigned default NULL, `text` blob, PRIMARY KEY (`id`), KEY `rule_id` (`rule_id`,`rtime`,`source`,`title`(255)), KEY `id` (`id`), KEY `rule_id_2` (`rule_id`,`title_255`), KEY `source` (`source`,`rule_id`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=497479 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; -- -- Dumping data for table `rules` -- LOCK TABLES `rules` WRITE; /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `rules` DISABLE KEYS */; INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (497302,'rcs','00000001.00000912',2179,'Foreign Relations','Points','Points',1228364127,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\n For each point axis:\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\nRule 2136/24 (Power=2)\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are active\n first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by\n the contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are active\n first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by\n the contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\n\nRule 2187/4 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\nRule 2187/3 (Power=2)\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x\n + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n All other players have each of eir coordinates set to\n floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\n\n\n======================================================================\nForeign Relations\n A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including\n other nomics.'),(496902,'rcs','00000001.00000850',101,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5773 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','The Rights of Agorans','The Rights of Agorans',1224271101,'Rule 101/10 (Power=3)\nThe Rights of Agorans\n\n WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a\n game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must\n balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,\n BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or\n binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person\'s\n rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and\n legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over\n any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights\n contained herein.\n\n i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the\n ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or\n regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of\n changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules\n explicitly or implicitly permit it.\n\n ii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n v. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n vii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5773 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(497307,'rcs','00000001.00000916',1789,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5991 (Elysion), 7 December 2008','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1228689088,'Rule 1789/5 (Power=2)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled\n a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir\n reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the\n Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of\n deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports,\n as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register\n within thirty days of eir deregistration, other rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October\n 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5991 (Elysion), 7 December 2008'),(496903,'rcs','00000001.00000851',1728,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1224271218,'Rule 1728/20 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a\n dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the\n action by at least one of the following methods (N is 1 if\n not otherwise specified):\n\n 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.\n 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.\n 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple\n of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.\n\n b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the\n action, unambiguously specifying the action and method\n (including the value of N), at most fourteen days earlier,\n and (if the action depends on objections) at least four days\n earlier.\n\n c) At least one of the following is true:\n\n 1) The performer is the initiator.\n\n 2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due\n to holding a rule-defined position now held by the\n performer.\n\n 3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the\n action depends on support, the performer has supported\n the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance\n does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing\n it.\n\n d) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by\n other rules.\n\n A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise\n permitted by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008'),(497202,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2126,'Amended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','','',1227766571,'Rule 2126/57 (Power=2)\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the\n during that week gains an E Note.\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497293,'rcs','00000001.00000909',2200,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1228363097,'Rule 2200/3 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\nRule 2200/2 (Power=1)\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic other than this one, even if it has\n the same name as this one.\n A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name\n of \"Agora\" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any\n nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.\n\n An embassy is a registered partnership designated as\n representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and\n the rules of that nomic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5968 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(497291,'rcs','00000001.00000906',2160,'Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 5983 (Warrigal), 29 November','Deputisation','Deputisation',1228006685,'Rule 2160/3 (Power=3)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 5983 (Warrigal), 29 November\n 2008'),(497266,'rcs','00000001.00000904',1950,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Voting on Democratic Decisions','Voting on Democratic Decisions',1228006444,'Rule 1950/20 (Power=3)\nVoting on Democratic Decisions\n\n The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities\n that were active first-class players at the start of its voting\n period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic\n decision is one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(497267,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2142,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1228006444,'Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be\n democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(497268,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2236,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','The Assessor','The Assessor',1228006444,'Rule 2236/0 (Power=2)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(497269,'rcs','00000001.00000904',1450,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5602 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1228006444,'Rule 1450/9 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Lest the entire proposal process fall under the control of a\n single entity, any change that would result in the same entity\n holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is\n canceled and does not occur, rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5602 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(497270,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2134,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1228006444,'Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default\n value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the\n remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008'),(497271,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2211,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5696 (Goethe), 20 September 2008','The Grand Poobah','The Grand Poobah',1228006444,'Rule 2211/2 (Power=2)\nThe Grand Poobah\n\n The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of castes.\n\n The Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player\'s caste by\n announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by\n the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case\n finds that e has flipped a Player\'s caste illegally (e.g. not\n as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the\n appropriate correct value as soon as possible.\n\n If a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped\n illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e\n has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the\n matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts\n and the Grand Poobah\'s ability to correct the issue, unless\n they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of\n this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to\n eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of\n each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order,\n at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet\n been chosen during the current procedure:\n\n 1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a\n player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling\n or exceeding the new caste:\n\n a) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha\n b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta\n c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma\n d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta\n\n 2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.\n\n b->c) While there are more than two Betas,\n flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma\n c->d) While there are more than three Gammas,\n flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta\n d->e) While there are more than four Deltas,\n flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon\n\n During the seven days immediately prior to the start of a month,\n the Speaker CAN publish an Honors List, indicating a list of\n players other than emself for promotion. If such a list is\n published, the Grand Poobah SHALL, during the Promotions step\n above, make as many legal promotions from this list as possible\n before making any other promotions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5680 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5696 (Goethe), 20 September 2008'),(497272,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2126,'Amended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Rule 2126/57 (Power=2)','Rule 2126/57 (Power=2)',1228006444,'Rule 2126/58 (Power=2)\nRule 2126/57 (Power=2)\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the\n during that week gains an E Note.\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497273,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2188,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Proposal','Win by Proposal',1228006444,'Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Proposal\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(497274,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2225,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009','Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)',1228006444,'Rule 2225/0 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2158/5 (Power=2)\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009'),(497275,'rcs','00000001.00000904',591,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Rule 591/27 (Power=1.7)','Rule 591/27 (Power=1.7)',1228006444,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nRule 591/27 (Power=1.7)\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497276,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2169,'Amended(10) by Proposal 6006 (Murphy), 10 December 2008','Rule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)','Rule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)',1228006444,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 6006 (Murphy), 10 December 2008'),(496968,'rcs','00000001.00000898',2178,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1227766408,'Rule 2178/4 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least\n one of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its parties, that the contract be\n public.\n\n (d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication,\n contains a clause or indication that the contract is a\n pledge.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do\n not become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),\n 29 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008'),(496969,'rcs','00000001.00000898',2136,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008','Contests','Contests',1227766408,'Rule 2136/23 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n\n The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008'),(496970,'rcs','00000001.00000899',869,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5973 (woggle), 25 November 2008','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1227766507,'Rule 869/27 (Power=2)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered. Changes to\n citizenship are secured.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A first-class person CAN register by announcing that e\n registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or\n requests permission to register.\n\n A second-class person CAN register with Agoran Consent.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5973 (woggle), 25 November 2008'),(496971,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2166,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5974 (Murphy; disi.), 25 November 2008','Assets','Assets',1227766571,'Rule 2166/8 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract\n (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because\n its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)\n defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That\n entity\'s report includes a list of all instances of that class\n and their owners. This portion of that entity\'s report is\n self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n A class of assets is public if its backing document is a rule or\n a public contract; otherwise it is private.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[CFJ 1910 (called 10 March 2008): When an existing entity is defined\nas an asset, the change of its owner from \"undefined\" to the Lost and\nFound Department [Bank at the time of CFJ 1910] counts as a transfer,\nand fails if the Lost and Found Department is outside of the class of\nobjects that can own the entity.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5974 (Murphy; disi.), 25 November 2008'),(497305,'rcs','00000001.00000914',2217,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Periodic Elections','Periodic Elections',1228688973,'Rule 2217/1 (Power=2)\nPeriodic Elections\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an elected office\'s stability without 2 objections. A\n Perpetual office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of\n that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have (or is created without) an\n active holder, or after an election for the office ends and\n the office still lacks an active holder. This requirement\n is waived if the office comes to have an active holder.\n\n These requirements are also waived if another player initiates\n an election for the office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497306,'rcs','00000001.00000915',2179,'Foreign Relations','Points','Points',1228689019,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\n For each point axis:\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\nRule 2136/25 (Power=2)\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'.\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are active\n first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by\n the contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are active\n first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by\n the contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6037 (Goethe), 13 January 2009\n\nRule 2187/4 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\nRule 2187/3 (Power=2)\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x\n + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n All other players have each of eir coordinates set to\n floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\n\n\n======================================================================\nForeign Relations\n A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including\n other nomics.'),(496965,'rcs','00000001.00000895',2220,'Created by Proposal 5958 (Warrigal), 17 November 2008','Agoran History','Agoran History',1227061788,'Rule 2220/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran History\n\n The Book of History is a document which can be amended without 3\n objections. It should contain accurate information about Agora\'s\n history.\n\n The Historian is a low-priority office whose report includes the\n current text of the Book of History. The Historian SHOULD\n propose amendments to the Book of History on a regular basis.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5958 (Warrigal), 17 November 2008'),(496966,'rcs','00000001.00000895',1367,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18','Degrees','Degrees',1227061788,'Rule 1367/12 (Power=1)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\n Degrees are generally awarded by proposals with adoption indices\n sufficiently high to award patent titles.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November\n 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18\n November 2008'),(496683,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1586,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1215386814,'Rule 1586/3 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still\n define that entity but with different properties, then that\n entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent\n is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(496682,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2125,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1215386814,'Rule 2125/2 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if:\n\n a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n b) It is ILLEGAL.\n\n c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which\n some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action\n CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the\n rules.\n\n f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and\n has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(496684,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1688,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Power','Power',1215386814,'Rule 1688/4 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\n A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)\n thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as\n allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n change\'s power threshold. This threshold defaults to the\n securing rule\'s power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that\n rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(496685,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2140,'Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Power Controls Mutability','Power Controls Mutability',1215386814,'Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)\nPower Controls Mutability\n\n No entity with power below the power of this rule can\n\n (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.\n\n (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than\n its own.\n\n (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with\n power greater than its own. A \"substantive\" aspect of\n an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument\'s\n operation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(496686,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2149,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1215386814,'Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes\n that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2149 can occur\nwithout any intent to misdirect.]\n\n[CFJ 1887 (called 30 January 2008): Publicly making the statement\n\"This statement is a lie.\" would most likely be a violation of rule\n2149, because it is logically indeterminate and so making it would not\nbe telling the truth, and its logical indeterminacy would be\nunderstood by any reasonable player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(496687,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2186,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Victory','Victory',1215386814,'Rule 2186/0 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(496688,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2110,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1215386814,'Rule 2110/5 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of\n a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.\n\n Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a\n tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,\n the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this\n Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other\n tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008'),(496689,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2199,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1215386814,'Rule 2199/1 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings\n are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(496690,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2177,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1215386814,'Rule 2177/5 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any player who is a member of the roll call is a\n senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of the\n most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007'),(496691,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2141,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1215386814,'Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(496692,'rcs','00000001.00000800',217,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Interpreting the Rules','Interpreting the Rules',1215386814,'Rule 217/6 (Power=3)\nInterpreting the Rules\n\n When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules\n takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or\n unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,\n past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the\n game.\n\n[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need\nnot necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or\nJustices given in past CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(496693,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1215386814,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.]\n\n[CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time\nof Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule\nof higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English\nmeaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does\nmust be decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(496694,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1030,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1215386814,'Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(496695,'rcs','00000001.00000800',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1215386814,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(496696,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1215386814,'Rule 1681/12 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(496697,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1051,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1215386814,'Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(496698,'rcs','00000001.00000800',869,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1215386814,'Rule 869/25 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(496699,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2144,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1215386814,'Rule 2144/8 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(496700,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1215386814,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(496701,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1215386814,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(496702,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2130,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Activity','Activity',1215386814,'Rule 2130/9 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(496703,'rcs','00000001.00000800',478,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Fora','Fora',1215386814,'Rule 478/23 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(496704,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2208,'Created by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008','Clarity of Announcements','Clarity of Announcements',1215386814,'Rule 2208/0 (Power=3)\nClarity of Announcements\n\n All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if the\n action is not unambiguously specified. This rule takes\n precedence over all rules that allow performance of an action by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008'),(496705,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2170,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1215386814,'Rule 2170/1 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n A public message\'s claim as to who published it is\n self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a\n challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has\n been issued within one month before its publication.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is\n the executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(496706,'rcs','00000001.00000800',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without\nsurrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate\nanything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the\nURI.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI\nby default have no significance other than their functional role as\npart of the URI.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(496707,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2152,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1215386814,'Rule 2152/4 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n persons in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified person(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the\n rule in question.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(496708,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1023,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 1023/23 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(496709,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2161,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1215386814,'Rule 2161/2 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(496710,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2146,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Indices','Indices',1215386814,'Rule 2146/1 (Power=2)\nIndices\n\n Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a\n total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum\n element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called\n positive infinity or unanimity.\n\n The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The\n ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The\n ratio of zero to any index is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(496711,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2162,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Switches','Switches',1215386814,'Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a\n switch, and specify the following:\n\n a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.\n No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.\n\n b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,\n exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other\n values are possible for instances of that switch.\n\n c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.\n That officer\'s report includes the value of each instance of\n that switch whose value is not its default value.\n\n At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one\n possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a\n switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.\n If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a\n possible value, it comes to have its default value.\n\n \"To flip an instance of a switch\" is to make it come to have a\n given value. \"To become X\" (where X is a possible value of\n exactly one of the subject\'s switches) is to flip that switch to\n X.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(496712,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2150,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1215386814,'Rule 2150/3 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(496713,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2166,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Assets','Assets',1215386814,'Rule 2166/5 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely\n because its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 1914.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(496714,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2181,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1215386814,'Rule 2181/3 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor. If any such assets exist,\n then the Accountor\'s report includes a list of their backing\n documents; otherwise, the Accountor has no report.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose\n backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(496715,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1728,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1215386814,'Rule 1728/19 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n A player CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action)\n if and only if the Rules explicitly authorize the player to\n perform the action by one of the following methods:\n\n - Without N Objections, where N is a nonnegative integer;\n - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or\n - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum of 1.0.\n\n The phrase \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\"; the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\"; the phrase \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with\n \"With 1.0 Agoran Consent\".\n\n A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the\n initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so,\n unambiguously describing both the action and the method,\n including the required value for N. A player (the performer)\n CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent\n action by announcement, if and only if all of the following are\n true:\n\n (a) the time elapsed since the announcement of intent is no more\n than fourteen days, and (if the action is to be performed\n Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four\n days;\n\n (b) either the performer was the initiator, or the action\n depends on support and the performer has supported the\n action and the rule allowing the action to be performed\n dependently does not explicitly prohibit supporters from\n performing it, or the initiator was authorized to perform\n the action by virtue of holding a rules-defined position and\n the performer is the holder of that position when e attempts\n to perform the action; and\n\n (c) At the time the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with\n the announced intent, as described elsewhere.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008'),(496716,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2124,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1215386814,'Rule 2124/7 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a\n dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players\n to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008'),(496717,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1769,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Holidays','Holidays',1215386814,'Rule 1769/7 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the\n time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event,\n and\n\n a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at\n which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose\n of determining the time of the future event.\n\n b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the\n future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require events to be\n performed before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(496718,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1750,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',1215386814,'Rule 1750/1 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February\n is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the\n ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(496719,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1006,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008','Offices','Offices',1215386814,'Rule 1006/25 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an\n elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL\n make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is\n waived if another player so makes a nomination.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008'),(496720,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2154,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1215386814,'Rule 2154/11 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved.\n A player who has not refused eir nomination is a consenting\n candidate.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if\n there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em\n in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more\n consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran\n decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known\n as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no nomination\n period began for that office during that quarter, then the IADoP\n SHALL make at least one nomination for the office during the\n following quarter. These requirements are waived if another\n player so makes a nomination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008'),(496721,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2138,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1215386814,'Rule 2138/4 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(496722,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2143,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1215386814,'Rule 2143/2 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,\n and the publication of all such information is part of that\n office\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each month. If any information is defined\n by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then\n the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such\n information, and the publication of all such information is\n part of that office\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(496723,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1551,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification','Ratification',1215386814,'Rule 1551/12 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n Ratifying a public document is secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(496724,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2202,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',1215386814,'Rule 2202/0 (Power=3)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(496725,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2201,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Self-Ratification','Self-Ratification',1215386814,'Rule 2201/0 (Power=3)\nSelf-Ratification\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(496726,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2160,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1215386814,'Rule 2160/3 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(496727,'rcs','00000001.00000800',693,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 693/9 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(496728,'rcs','00000001.00000800',107,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 107/9 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(496729,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2137,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','The Assessor','The Assessor',1215386814,'Rule 2137/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report EVLOD (rule 2156)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(496730,'rcs','00000001.00000800',683,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more\nvotes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the\nmaking of a false statement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(496731,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2127,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1215386814,'Rule 2127/2 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own\n opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008'),(496732,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2168,'Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007','Extending the voting period','Extending the voting period',1215386814,'Rule 2168/0 (Power=1)\nExtending the voting period\n\n Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and\n the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting\n period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided\n this has not already happened for the decision in question.\n\n Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision\n SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who\n have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007'),(496733,'rcs','00000001.00000800',208,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1215386814,'Rule 208/7 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(496734,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2196,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 2196/1 (Power=3)\nStandard Classes of Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or\n democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater\n than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision\n with an adoption index is ordinary by default.\n\n If an Agoran decision has an adoption index, then the following\n are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its adoption index.\n b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n\n For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available\n options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(496735,'rcs','00000001.00000800',955,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 955/13 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting\n index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(496736,'rcs','00000001.00000800',879,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Quorum','Quorum',1215386814,'Rule 879/27 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(496737,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2034,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1215386814,'Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any\n existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is\n wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the\n validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be\n validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be\n changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This\n does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.\n\n A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(496738,'rcs','00000001.00000800',106,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1215386814,'Rule 106/12 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(496739,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2153,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Interest Index','Interest Index',1215386814,'Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)\nInterest Index\n\n The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 0 to 3. It\n CAN be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or\n otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be\n proportional to its complexity.\n\n \"Disinterested\" is a synonym for \"interest index 0\". A proposal\n SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited\n to correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(496740,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1607,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1215386814,'Rule 1607/18 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution\n of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the\n beginning of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(496741,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1450,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1215386814,'Rule 1450/8 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(496742,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1698,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Agora Is a Nomic','Agora Is a Nomic',1215386814,'Rule 1698/1 (Power=3)\nAgora Is a Nomic\n\n In the interest of safeguarding Agora\'s nomic-ness, if a change\n to the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make\n arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a\n four-week period by any combinations of actions by players, then\n that change is canceled and does not occur, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997\nRetitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(496743,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1950,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Voting on Democratic Decisions','Voting on Democratic Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 1950/20 (Power=3)\nVoting on Democratic Decisions\n\n The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities\n that were active first-class players at the start of its voting\n period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic\n decision is one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(496744,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2156,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 2156/6 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting\n limit on ordinary decisions (BVLOD). The BVLOD of a first-class\n player is four, the BVLOD of a province is four, and the BVLOD\n of any other player is zero. BVLOD cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. Changes to VVLOD\n are secured\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir effective\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir EVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. At the end of\n each week, each player\'s EVLOD is set to eir VVLOD, rounded to\n an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOD is\n set to the same rounded value. EVLOD cannot be modified by any\n other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s\n EVLOD.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n EVLOD at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008'),(496745,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2134,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1215386814,'Rule 2134/4 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD, and\n no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder\n of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that\n each player\'s EVLOD is set based on eir VVLOD.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(496746,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2126,'Amended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008','Notes','Notes',1215386814,'Rule 2126/55 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008'),(496747,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2142,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1215386814,'Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be\n democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(496748,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2019,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1215386814,'Rule 2019/15 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent\n title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose which\n members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008'),(496749,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2188,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Proposal','Win by Proposal',1215386814,'Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Proposal\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(496750,'rcs','00000001.00000800',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1215386814,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)\n * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(496751,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2175,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1215386814,'Rule 2175/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(496752,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1868,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1215386814,'Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(496753,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1871,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1215386814,'Rule 1871/24 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e SHALL\n flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely\n fashion.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008'),(496754,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2204,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Linked Assignments','Linked Assignments',1215386814,'Rule 2204/0 (Power=1.5)\nLinked Assignments\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts assigns a player as judge of two or\n more judicial cases consecutively in the same announcement, that\n player only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules\n to the contrary notwithstanding. The CotC SHOULD NOT do this\n unless those cases are closely related in their subject matter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(496755,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2203,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Hawkishness','Hawkishness',1215386814,'Rule 2203/0 (Power=1.5)\nHawkishness\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts, with the following values:\n\n * Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any inquiry case.\n\n * Hugging. Hugging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be\n assigned as judge of any equity case.\n\n * Hemming-and-Hawing (default).\n\n Changes to hawkishness are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(496756,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2157,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1215386814,'Rule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members, or\n (unless the CotC is a member of the panel, the prior judge, or\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the\n Support of at least half the other members and the Support of\n the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support a majority action if the\n panel has made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By\n this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008'),(496757,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2158,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1215386814,'Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008'),(496758,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2164,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1215386814,'Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(496759,'rcs','00000001.00000800',591,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1215386814,'Rule 591/26 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(496760,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1504,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1215386814,'Rule 1504/23 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.\n When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of\n eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(496761,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2190,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Crime Doesn\'t Pay','Crime Doesn\'t Pay',1215386814,'Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(496762,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1215386814,'Rule 2169/5 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the\n contract in question by announcement.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496763,'rcs','00000001.00000800',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1215386814,'Rule 911/20 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered\n open again\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior\n case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered\n open again\n\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496915,'rcs','00000001.00000860',2156,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1224728528,'Rule 2156/9 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the\n following values and their numeric equivalents:\n\n Alpha - 8\n Beta - 5\n Gamma - 3\n Delta - 2\n Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and\n provinces)\n Savage - 0 (default for all other players)\n\n Changes to caste are secured, lest a coalition of high-caste\n players grant itself a boring permanence.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496916,'rcs','00000001.00000860',2126,'Amended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Notes','Notes',1224728528,'Rule 2126/57 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(497258,'rcs','00000001.00000903',591,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)',1227767884,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497259,'rcs','00000001.00000903',591,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','','',1227767884,'Rule 591/27 (Power=1.7)\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497260,'rcs','00000001.00000903',2169,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)',1227767884,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(496894,'rcs','00000001.00000841',2170,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5741 (Murphy), 16 October 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1224194632,'Rule 2170/5 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not\n to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those\n persons within Agora.\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead\n others as to the identity of its publisher.\n\n A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname, including but\n not limited to a name that has generally been used to refer to\n another entity within the past three months.\n\n A public message\'s (possibly implicit) claim as to the identity\n of its publisher is self-ratifying, provided that the claim is\n neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, and no challenge of\n identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued\n within one month before its publication. Upon a judicial\n finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages\n (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those\n claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon\n as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet\n was a person during one or more time periods, which SHOULD\n correspond to general belief prior to that finding.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. (Upon a judicial finding that the Executor of a public\n message cannot otherwise be determined within reasonable effort,\n the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial\n declaration specifying the identity of that message\'s Executor.)\n The executor of an action performed by announcement is the\n executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5671 (Murphy, Pavrita), 12 August 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5716 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5717 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5741 (Murphy), 16 October 2008'),(496895,'rcs','00000001.00000842',2127,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5746 (Murphy), 16 October 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1224194761,'Rule 2127/3 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information reasonably available within the\n voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own\n opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5746 (Murphy), 16 October 2008'),(496896,'rcs','00000001.00000844',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1224195157,'Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.\n\n Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not\n otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or\n more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and\n governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have\n at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a\n manner of equity, if a player is found GUILTY of violating this\n Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract that has\n never been a partnership, the only appropriate sentence is\n DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with respect to a\n previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5663 (Murphy), 9 August 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(496948,'rcs','00000001.00000886',2181,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1226705215,'Rule 2181/7 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of classes of assets.\n\n The Accountor\'s report includes a list of all public classes of\n assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5598 (Wooble; disi.), 29 June 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5600 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008'),(496949,'rcs','00000001.00000887',2137,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','The Assessor','The Assessor',1226725482,'Rule 2137/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(496950,'rcs','00000001.00000889',2136,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008','Contests','Contests',1226798958,'Rule 2136/22 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n\n The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008'),(496951,'rcs','00000001.00000890',2177,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5944 (Taral, ais523), 15 November 2008','The Senate','The Senate',1226799182,'Rule 2177/6 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered\n continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days. The\n collection of Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report\n includes a list of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any first-class player who is a member of the roll call\n is a senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of\n the most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5944 (Taral, ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496952,'rcs','00000001.00000891',2177,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5945 (root), 15 November 2008','The Senate','The Senate',1226799242,'Rule 2177/7 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered\n continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days. The\n collection of Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report\n includes a list of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts\n until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session\n terminates 21 days after it was called. A Senator CAN terminate\n an emergency session without 3 Senate objections. Terminating\n an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor\'s report\n includes the dates when the most recent emergency session was\n called and terminated.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any first-class player who is a member of the roll call\n is a senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of\n the most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5944 (Taral, ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5945 (root), 15 November 2008'),(496953,'rcs','00000001.00000892',2215,'Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1226799671,'Rule 2215/0 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant\n to the rules that is intended to mislead others as to its truth\n (or, in the case of a public statement that one performs an\n action, its effectiveness).\n\n For the purpose of this rule:\n\n a) Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making that\n statement.\n\n b) Any conditional clause or other qualifier attached to a\n statement constitutes part of the statement; the nature of\n the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2215 (then 2149), depending on the context of the\nrest of the message.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5789 (Murphy, Zefram, Michael, Goethe), 22 October\n 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496954,'rcs','00000001.00000892',2130,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','Activity','Activity',1226799671,'Rule 2130/9 (Power=2)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496955,'rcs','00000001.00000892',2161,'Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1226799671,'Rule 2161/3 (Power=1)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\n (f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name\n is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it\n has no name.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496956,'rcs','00000001.00000892',1728,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1226799671,'Rule 1728/21 (Power=3)\nDependent Actions\n\n A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a\n dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the\n action by at least one of the following methods (N is 1 if\n not otherwise specified):\n\n 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.\n 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.\n 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple\n of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.\n\n b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the\n action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and\n method (including the value of N), at most fourteen days\n earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least\n four days earlier.\n\n c) At least one of the following is true:\n\n 1) The performer is the initiator.\n\n 2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due\n to holding a rule-defined position now held by the\n performer.\n\n 3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the\n action depends on support, the performer has supported\n the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance\n does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing\n it.\n\n d) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by\n other rules.\n\n A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise\n permitted by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496957,'rcs','00000001.00000892',1607,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1226799671,'Rule 1607/18 (Power=2)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution\n of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the\n beginning of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal\ndistribution of either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496897,'rcs','00000001.00000845',2150,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5760 (comex), 16 October 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1224195269,'Rule 2150/4 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n A first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All\n other persons are second-class.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5760 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(496898,'rcs','00000001.00000846',2124,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1224270395,'Rule 2124/8 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is\n equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of\n a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of\n players to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21\n February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008'),(496899,'rcs','00000001.00000847',2175,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1224270468,'Rule 2175/3 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n If a judicial case (other than an appeal case) has not had any\n judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008'),(496900,'rcs','00000001.00000848',101,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','The Rights of Agorans','The Rights of Agorans',1224270621,'Rule 101/9 (Power=3)\nThe Rights of Agorans\n\n WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a\n game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must\n balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,\n BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or\n binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person\'s\n rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and\n legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over\n any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights\n contained herein.\n\n i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the\n ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or\n regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of\n changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules\n explicitly or implicitly permit it.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(496901,'rcs','00000001.00000849',1871,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5771 (root), 17 October 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1224270702,'Rule 1871/25 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e CAN flip\n that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely\n fashion.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5771 (root), 17 October 2008'),(496958,'rcs','00000001.00000892',1367,'Power changed from 1.5 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November','Degrees','Degrees',1226799671,'Rule 1367/11 (Power=1)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November\n 2008'),(496959,'rcs','00000001.00000892',103,'Power changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1226799671,'Rule 103/4 (Power=1)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nPower changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496960,'rcs','00000001.00000892',2148,'Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1226799671,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=1)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(496961,'rcs','00000001.00000893',107,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1226799812,'Rule 107/10 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be\n shorter than seven days. The vote collector for a decision with\n less than two options CAN end the voting period by announcement,\n provided that e resolves the decision in the same message.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008'),(496962,'rcs','00000001.00000893',955,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1226799812,'Rule 955/15 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then the voting index\n is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (c) If the decision is for an election, then the outcome is the\n candidate with the most votes. In case of a tie, the vote\n collector SHALL select one of the leaders as the outcome.\n If there are no candidates, then the outcome is null.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008'),(496963,'rcs','00000001.00000894',2220,'Created by Proposal 5658 (Warrigal), 17 November 2008','Agoran History','Agoran History',1226976127,'Rule 2220/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran History\n\n The Book of History is a document which can be amended without 3\n objections. It should contain accurate information about Agora\'s\n history.\n\n The Historian is a low-priority office whose report includes the\n current text of the Book of History. The Historian SHOULD\n propose amendments to the Book of History on a regular basis.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5658 (Warrigal), 17 November 2008'),(496964,'rcs','00000001.00000895',2110,'Power changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy;','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1227061788,'Rule 2110/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Paradox\n\n A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of\n a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.\n\n Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a\n tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,\n the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this\n Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other\n tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy;\n disi.), 18 November 2008'),(496886,'rcs','00000001.00000838',1367,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Degrees','Degrees',1223595575,'Rule 1367/11 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(496887,'rcs','00000001.00000838',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)',1223595575,'Rule 1742/16 (Power=2)\nRule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.\n\n Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not\n otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or\n more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and\n governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have\n at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a\n Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract, the only\n appropriate sentence is DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with\n respect to a previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5663 (Murphy), 9 August 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(497261,'rcs','00000001.00000903',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','','',1227767884,'Rule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(497262,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1228006444,'Rule 2105/3 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(497263,'rcs','00000001.00000904',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',1228006444,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael\nNorrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present\ntime.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(497264,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2174,'Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Aliens','Aliens',1228006444,'Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)\nAliens\n\n An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or\n more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an\n alien with one or more registered visas.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(497265,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2145,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','Partnerships','Partnerships',1228006444,'Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings,\n e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the\n crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate\n sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the\n partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is\n not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or\n would not adequately apply responsibility.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(497326,'rcs','00000001.00000927',2156,'Amended(11) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1229403948,'Rule 2156/11 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the\n following values and their numeric equivalents:\n\n Alpha - 8\n Beta - 5\n Gamma - 3\n Delta - 2\n Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and\n provinces)\n Savage - 0 (default for all other players)\n\n Changes to caste are secured, lest a coalition of high-caste\n players grant itself a boring permanence.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n caste at the start of its voting period, reduced to the next\n lower caste (minimum Savage) for each positive multiple of 4\n Rests that the voter posesses at the start of the voting period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5985 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,\n OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008'),(497323,'rcs','00000001.00000926',2169,'Amended(11) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 2169/10 (Power=1.7)','Rule 2169/10 (Power=1.7)',1229402986,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2169/10 (Power=1.7)\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n measured as of the time the case was initiated; however, if the\n initiating message specifies a different time that falls within\n the week before the case was initiated, then that time is used\n instead.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 6006 (Murphy), 10 December 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497322,'rcs','00000001.00000925',2143,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1229402808,'Rule 2143/3 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each role:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that role\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that role SHALL perform it\n at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that role\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that role SHALL maintain all such information, and\n the publication of all such information is part of that\n role\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that role\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that role SHALL perform it\n at least once each month. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that role\'s monthly report, then the\n holder of that role SHALL maintain all such information, and\n the publication of all such information is part of that\n role\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an role\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the role is defined by the rules as low-priority,\n in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008'),(497320,'rcs','00000001.00000925',2218,'Created by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008','Win by Not Losing','Win by Not Losing',1229402808,'Rule 2218/0 (Power=1)\nWin by Not Losing\n\n While all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition,\n that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008'),(497321,'rcs','00000001.00000925',1681,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1229402808,'Rule 1681/13 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is modified in any way (including a power or\n title change), the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by\n adding a historical annotation, which MUST include:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008'),(497319,'rcs','00000001.00000924',1922,'Amended(29) by Proposal 6009 (Sgeo), 10 December 2008','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1228975183,'Rule 1922/29 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all\n non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is\n administratively revoked from any player who would be\n Speaker if the player wasn\'t inactive, until the number of\n persons bearing this title is no longer greater than the\n number of Prerogatives defined by the rules; if it is still\n greater, then this title is administratively revoked from\n the Speaker.\n\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any\n player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5805 (Murphy, Zefram), 29 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5967 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6009 (Sgeo), 10 December 2008'),(497318,'rcs','00000001.00000923',2199,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6008 (PNP), 10 December 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1228975060,'Rule 2199/3 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. If winning is secured,\n then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured with the same power\n threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this\n fashion before), that player gains a White Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6008 (PNP), 10 December 2008'),(497317,'rcs','00000001.00000922',911,'Amended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008','Rule 911/23 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/23 (Power=1.7)',1228690459,'Rule 911/25 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/23 (Power=1.7)\n\n Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the\n prior judgement at the time it was delivered:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is\n rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the\n judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior\n question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be\n assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior\n case will not make a better judgement if given a new\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008'),(497316,'rcs','00000001.00000922',591,'Amended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 591/28 (Power=1.7)','Rule 591/28 (Power=1.7)',1228690459,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nRule 591/28 (Power=1.7)\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical\n not relevant to the game\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497277,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2205,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','Judicial Arguments and Evidence','Judicial Arguments and Evidence',1228006444,'Rule 2205/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Arguments and Evidence\n\n Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD\n present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)\n relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:\n\n 1) The initiator, when initiating the case.\n\n 2) For a criminal case, the defendant, during the pre-trial\n phase.\n\n 3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question,\n during the pre-trial phase.\n\n 4) The judge, when delivering judgement.\n\n Matters of legal interpretation SHOULD be classified as\n arguments; matters of fact SHOULD be classified as evidence.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(497278,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2157,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008','Rule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)','Rule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)',1228006444,'Rule 2157/6 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members. By\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members, or\n (unless the CotC is a member of the panel, the prior judge, or\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the\n Support of at least half the other members and the Support of\n the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support a majority action if the\n panel has made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n The rules may specify other mechanisms by which the judicial\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008'),(497255,'rcs','00000001.00000903',2168,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008','Extending the voting period','Extending the voting period',1227767884,'Rule 2168/1 (Power=1)\nExtending the voting period\n\n Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and\n the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting\n period for that decision is instead doubled, provided this has\n not already happened for the decision in question.\n\n Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision\n SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who\n have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008'),(497256,'rcs','00000001.00000903',2126,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)',1227767884,'Rule 2126/58 (Power=2)\nRule 2134/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default\n value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the\n remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008'),(497219,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2164,'History:','Rule 2205/1 (Power=1)','Rule 2205/1 (Power=1)',1227766571,'Rule 2164/3 (Power=1)\nRule 2205/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Arguments and Evidence\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD\n present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)\n relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:\nHistory:\n 1) The initiator, when initiating the case.'),(497220,'rcs','00000001.00000900',649,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6047 (comex), 13 January 2009','Rule 649/27 (Power=1.5)','Rule 649/27 (Power=1.5)',1227766571,'Rule 649/28 (Power=1.5)\nRule 649/27 (Power=1.5)\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n While a Patent Title has been awarded to (and not revoked from)\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February\n 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6047 (comex), 13 January 2009'),(497147,'rcs','00000001.00000900',217,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Interpreting the Rules','Interpreting the Rules',1227766571,'Rule 217/6 (Power=3)\nInterpreting the Rules\n\n When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules\n takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or\n unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,\n past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the\n game.\n\n[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need\nnot necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or\nJustices given in past CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(497144,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2199,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1227766571,'Rule 2199/2 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. If winning is secured,\n then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured with the same power\n threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(497145,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2177,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5945 (root), 15 November 2008','The Senate','The Senate',1227766571,'Rule 2177/7 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered\n continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days. The\n collection of Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report\n includes a list of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts\n until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session\n terminates 21 days after it was called. A Senator CAN terminate\n an emergency session without 3 Senate objections. Terminating\n an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor\'s report\n includes the dates when the most recent emergency session was\n called and terminated.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any first-class player who is a member of the roll call\n is a senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of\n the most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5944 (Taral, ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5945 (root), 15 November 2008'),(497146,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2141,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1227766571,'Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(497228,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2179,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','Points','Points',1227766571,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2145/5 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n of points.\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings,\n e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the\n crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate\n sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the\n partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is\n not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or\n would not adequately apply responsibility.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(497229,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2174,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008','Aliens','Aliens',1227766571,'Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)\nAliens\n\n An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or\n more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an\n alien with one or more registered visas.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\nRule 2136/23 (Power=2)\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\n\nRule 2187/4 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008'),(497230,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2187,'Foreign Relations',' Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x',' Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x',1227766571,'Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x\n + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n All other players have each of eir coordinates set to\n floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\n\n\n======================================================================\nForeign Relations\n A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including\n other nomics.'),(497231,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2200,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1227766571,'Rule 2200/3 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\nRule 2200/1 (Power=1)\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic other than this one, even if it has\n the same name as this one.\n A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name\n of \"Agora\" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any\n nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.\n\n An embassy is a registered partnership designated as\n representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5968 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\nRule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(497232,'rcs','00000001.00000900',402,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1227766571,'Rule 402/26 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\nRule 402/25 (Power=1)\n The office of Speaker is held by the active player who has borne\n the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with\n The Speaker is the active player who has borne the Patent Title\n of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 103/5 (Power=1)\nRole of the Speaker\nRule 103/4 (Power=1)\n The Speaker is an imposed office, and the figurehead of Agora,\n embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nPower changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 2148/3 (Power=1)\nThe Ambassador\nRule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(497233,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2148,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008',' The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for',' The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for',1227766571,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=1)\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the\n ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador.\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(497234,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2147,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1227766571,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(497235,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2159,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1227766571,'Rule 2159/3 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\nRule 2159/2 (Power=2)\n A protective decree is an act of Agora whose intended effect is\n to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate nomic.\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n\n Initiating a protective decree is secured, and is INVALID unless\n the initiating instrument unambiguously specifies the target\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 2206/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Trade\n\n A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a\n foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon\n as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the\n announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.\n\n The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt\n legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable\n foreign assets.\n\n Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign\n exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(497236,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2207,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Trade Embargo','Trade Embargo',1227766571,'Rule 2207/0 (Power=1)\nTrade Embargo\n\n A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its\n Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(497237,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1727,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1227766571,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\nRule 2105/3 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(497238,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2151,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1227766571,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\nRule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael\nNorrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present\ntime.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(497239,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1227766571,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\n[CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an\nobilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because \"Marvy\" is\ncurrently undefined.]\n\n[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not\nnecessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(497240,'rcs','00000001.00000901',2221,'Created by Proposal 5975 (Murphy), 25 November 2008','Cleanliness','Cleanliness',1227767517,'Rule 2221/0 (Power=3)\nCleanliness\n\n The Rulekeepor CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying\n one or more spelling and/or grammar corrections; the rule is\n amended as specified.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5975 (Murphy), 25 November 2008'),(497213,'rcs','00000001.00000900',591,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)',1227766571,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497214,'rcs','00000001.00000900',591,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','','',1227766571,'Rule 591/27 (Power=1.7)\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497215,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2230,'Amended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Rule 1504/31 (Power=2)','Rule 1504/31 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2)\nRule 1504/31 (Power=2)\n\n Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged\n a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the\n prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform,\n appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the\n severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the\n consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any\n other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or\n insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive\n service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence\n of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the\n prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time\n limit is specified).\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register, rules to\n the contrary notwithstanding.\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008\nAmended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497310,'rcs','00000001.00000918',1728,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1228689591,'Rule 1728/22 (Power=3)\nDependent Actions\n\n A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a\n dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the\n action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N\n is 1 if not otherwise specified):\n\n 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.\n 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.\n 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple\n of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.\n\n b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the\n action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and\n method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at\n most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on\n objections) at least four days earlier.\n\n c) At least one of the following is true:\n\n 1) The performer is the initiator.\n\n 2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due\n to holding a rule-defined position now held by the\n performer.\n\n 3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the\n action depends on support, the performer has supported\n the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance\n does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing\n it.\n\n d) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by\n other rules.\n\n A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise\n permitted by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497280,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2175,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 2175/3 (Power=1)','Rule 2175/3 (Power=1)',1228006444,'Rule 2175/4 (Power=1)\nRule 2175/3 (Power=1)\n\n A new case is a judicial case (other than an appeal case) that\n If a judicial case (other than an appeal case) has not had any\n judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497281,'rcs','00000001.00000904',1868,'Amended(13) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)','Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)',1228006444,'Rule 1868/13 (Power=2)\nRule 1868/12 (Power=2)\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal \"with cause\" is a recusal defined as\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497170,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1769,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5701 (ais523), 1 October 2008','Holidays','Holidays',1227766571,'Rule 1769/7 (Power=3)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the\n time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event,\n and\n\n a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at\n which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose\n of determining the time of the future event.\n\n b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the\n future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require events to be\n performed before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5701 (ais523), 1 October 2008'),(497171,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2216,'Created by Proposal 5794 (Murphy, Swann), 26 October 2008','The Repeal-o-Matic','The Repeal-o-Matic',1227766571,'Rule 2216/0 (Power=1)\nThe Repeal-o-Matic\n\n The Anarchist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n proposing the repeal of rules.\n\n The Anarchist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly five distinct rules.\n\n b) For one to three of these rules, submit a proposal, with\n adoption index equal to the Power of the rule, and interest\n index 0, to repeal the rule.\n\n[Cross-references (28 October 2008): the Anarchist\'s duties are:\n * propose repeal of rules (rule 2216)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5794 (Murphy, Swann), 26 October 2008'),(497172,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1750,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',1227766571,'Rule 1750/1 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February\n is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the\n ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(497173,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2220,'Created by Proposal 5958 (Warrigal), 17 November 2008','Agoran History','Agoran History',1227766571,'Rule 2220/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran History\n\n The Book of History is a document which can be amended without 3\n objections. It should contain accurate information about Agora\'s\n history.\n\n The Historian is a low-priority office whose report includes the\n current text of the Book of History. The Historian SHOULD\n propose amendments to the Book of History on a regular basis.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5958 (Warrigal), 17 November 2008'),(497174,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1006,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008','Offices','Offices',1227766571,'Rule 1006/25 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an\n elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL\n make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is\n waived if another player so makes a nomination.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008'),(497175,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2154,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Election Procedure','Election Procedure',1227766571,'Rule 2154/19 (Power=2)\nElection Procedure\n\n Any player CAN by announcement initiate an election for an\n elected office for which no election is already in progress,\n nominating at least one active player.\n\n During the first four days of the election (the nomination\n period), any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more\n active players.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, the IADoP\n SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder. For this decision:\n\n 1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active\n players who, during the election,\n\n a) received and accepted a nomination for the office\n before the decision was initiated (self-nomination\n constitutes acceptance), and\n\n b) did not decline a nomination for the office.\n\n The set of candidates can change after the decision is\n initiated.\n\n 2) The eligible voters are the active players.\n\n 3) Each eligible voter\'s voting limit is one. An ordered list\n of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for the\n first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the\n second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth.\n\n Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a\n candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(497176,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2217,'Created by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Periodic Elections','Periodic Elections',1227766571,'Rule 2217/0 (Power=2)\nPeriodic Elections\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an elected office\'s stability without 2 objections. A\n Perpetual office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of\n that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder, or after\n an election for the office ends and the office fails to have\n an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office\n comes to have an active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(497177,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2138,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1227766571,'Rule 2138/5 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP\'s\n report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2217)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2217)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008'),(497178,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2143,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1227766571,'Rule 2143/2 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,\n and the publication of all such information is part of that\n office\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each month. If any information is defined\n by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then\n the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such\n information, and the publication of all such information is\n part of that office\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(497179,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1551,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification','Ratification',1227766571,'Rule 1551/12 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n Ratifying a public document is secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(497180,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2202,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',1227766571,'Rule 2202/0 (Power=3)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(497181,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2201,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Self-Ratification','Self-Ratification',1227766571,'Rule 2201/0 (Power=3)\nSelf-Ratification\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(497182,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2160,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1227766571,'Rule 2160/3 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(497183,'rcs','00000001.00000900',693,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1227766571,'Rule 693/9 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(497184,'rcs','00000001.00000900',107,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1227766571,'Rule 107/10 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be\n shorter than seven days. The vote collector for a decision with\n less than two options CAN end the voting period by announcement,\n provided that e resolves the decision in the same message.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008'),(497185,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2137,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','The Assessor','The Assessor',1227766571,'Rule 2137/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(497186,'rcs','00000001.00000900',683,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1227766571,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more\nvotes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the\nmaking of a false statement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(497187,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2127,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5746 (Murphy), 16 October 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1227766571,'Rule 2127/3 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information reasonably available within the\n voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own\n opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5746 (Murphy), 16 October 2008'),(497188,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2168,'Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007','Extending the voting period','Extending the voting period',1227766571,'Rule 2168/0 (Power=1)\nExtending the voting period\n\n Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and\n the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting\n period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided\n this has not already happened for the decision in question.\n\n Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision\n SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who\n have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007'),(497189,'rcs','00000001.00000900',208,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1227766571,'Rule 208/7 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June\n 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(497190,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2196,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions',1227766571,'Rule 2196/1 (Power=3)\nStandard Classes of Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or\n democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater\n than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision\n with an adoption index is ordinary by default.\n\n If an Agoran decision has an adoption index, then the following\n are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its adoption index.\n b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n\n For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available\n options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(497191,'rcs','00000001.00000900',955,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1227766571,'Rule 955/15 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then the voting index\n is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (c) If the decision is for an election, then the outcome is the\n candidate with the most votes. In case of a tie, the vote\n collector SHALL select one of the leaders as the outcome.\n If there are no candidates, then the outcome is null.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008'),(497154,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2144,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1227766571,'Rule 2144/8 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(497155,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1227766571,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(497156,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1789,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1227766571,'Rule 1789/4 (Power=2)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled\n a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir\n reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the\n Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of\n deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports,\n as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October\n 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(497157,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2130,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','Activity','Activity',1227766571,'Rule 2130/9 (Power=2)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(497158,'rcs','00000001.00000900',478,'Amended(26) by proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008','Fora','Fora',1227766571,'Rule 478/26 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by unambiguously\n and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs\n it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at\n the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1905 (called 7 February 2008): Regardless of CFJ 1314, a message\nhas not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to\nreceive messages via the forum receive it.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008'),(497257,'rcs','00000001.00000903',2126,'Amended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','','',1227767884,'Rule 2126/57 (Power=2)\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the\n during that week gains an E Note.\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497193,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2034,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1227766571,'Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any\n existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is\n wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the\n validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be\n validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be\n changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This\n does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.\n\n A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(497194,'rcs','00000001.00000900',106,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1227766571,'Rule 106/13 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008'),(497195,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2224,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)','Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)',1227766571,'Rule 2224/0 (Power=1)\nRule 2153/1 (Power=1)\nInterest Index\n Each proposal has an interest index, which CAN be set by its\n The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 0 to 3. It\n CAN be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or\n otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be\n proportional to its complexity.\n\n \"Disinterested\" is a synonym for \"interest index 0\". A proposal\n SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited\n to correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(496321,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Amended(5)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who has at least one Blot is permitted to remove any or\n all of those Blots by sending a message to the Public Forum\n indicating how many Blots e wishes to remove. If that Player\'s\n Treasury contains at least 1 VT for each Blot to be\n removed, then that number of VTs is transferred from the\n Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no\n Mil are transferred and no Blots are removed.\n\n The Herald shall detect and report all transfers and Blot\n Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496322,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Amended(6)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who has at least one Blot is permitted to remove any or\n all of those Blots by sending a message to the Public Forum\n indicating how many Blots e wishes to remove. If that Player\'s\n Treasury contains at least 1 VT for each Blot to be\n removed, then that number of VTs is transferred from the\n Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no\n VTs are transferred and no Blots are removed.\n\n The Herald shall detect and report all transfers and Blot\n Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496323,'zefram',NULL,1441,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1441 by Proposal 1462, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon beginning a new Game, any Player with Blots immediately\n loses Points equal to the number of eir Blots. Every Player who\n is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved, rounding down to\n the next lower integer. This halving will never reduce a\n Player\'s total Blots below one.\n\n Detecting and reporting this Blot change is the Tabulator\'s\n responsibility. The Tabulator reports the Point losses to the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n'),(496324,'zefram',NULL,1441,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon beginning a new Game, any Player with Blots immediately\n loses a number of Mils equal to the number of eir Blots.\n Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved,\n rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will\n never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.\n\n Detecting and reporting this Blot change is the Tabulator\'s\n responsibility. The Tabulator reports the Mark losses to the\n Banker.\n\n'),(497314,'rcs','00000001.00000921',106,'Amended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1228690241,'Rule 106/14 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a\n Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere. Removing\n a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an\n Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.\n\n If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active\n player to distribute a Proposal, than any player may do so\n Without 3 Objections.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008'),(497308,'rcs','00000001.00000917',2141,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1228689355,'Rule 2141/2 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are\n strictly ordered.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497309,'rcs','00000001.00000917',2161,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1228689355,'Rule 2161/4 (Power=1)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to\n an entity of that type, and (if the type of entity is\n defined by the rules as strictly ordered) greater than any\n orderly ID number so assigned. The player SHOULD select the\n smallest number possible.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\n (f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name\n is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it\n has no name.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(460381,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2177,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1215386814,'Rule 2177/5 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any player who is a member of the roll call is a\n senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of the\n most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007'),(460372,'rcs','00000001.00000800',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1215386814,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(460382,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2141,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1215386814,'Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(460383,'rcs','00000001.00000800',217,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Interpreting the Rules','Interpreting the Rules',1215386814,'Rule 217/6 (Power=3)\nInterpreting the Rules\n\n When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules\n takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or\n unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,\n past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the\n game.\n\n[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need\nnot necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or\nJustices given in past CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(460373,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2125,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1215386814,'Rule 2125/2 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if:\n\n a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n b) It is ILLEGAL.\n\n c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which\n some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action\n CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the\n rules.\n\n f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and\n has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(460374,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1586,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1215386814,'Rule 1586/3 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still\n define that entity but with different properties, then that\n entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent\n is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(460375,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1688,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Power','Power',1215386814,'Rule 1688/4 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\n A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)\n thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as\n allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n change\'s power threshold. This threshold defaults to the\n securing rule\'s power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that\n rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(460376,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2140,'Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Power Controls Mutability','Power Controls Mutability',1215386814,'Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)\nPower Controls Mutability\n\n No entity with power below the power of this rule can\n\n (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.\n\n (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than\n its own.\n\n (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with\n power greater than its own. A \"substantive\" aspect of\n an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument\'s\n operation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(460377,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2149,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1215386814,'Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes\n that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2149 can occur\nwithout any intent to misdirect.]\n\n[CFJ 1887 (called 30 January 2008): Publicly making the statement\n\"This statement is a lie.\" would most likely be a violation of rule\n2149, because it is logically indeterminate and so making it would not\nbe telling the truth, and its logical indeterminacy would be\nunderstood by any reasonable player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(460378,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2186,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Victory','Victory',1215386814,'Rule 2186/0 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(460379,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2110,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1215386814,'Rule 2110/5 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of\n a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.\n\n Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a\n tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,\n the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this\n Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other\n tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008'),(460380,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2199,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1215386814,'Rule 2199/1 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings\n are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(460460,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2197,'Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)','Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2197/1 (Power=2)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\n 2008'),(460461,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2198,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2198/1 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nMaking Contract Changes\n If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to\n it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using\n that mechanism.\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n Objection if, before the dependent action is resolved, no party\n blocks the change by announcement.\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008'),(460462,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2178,'Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),','Rule 2178/2 (Power=2)','Rule 2178/2 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2178/2 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2178/2 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one\n of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its members, that the contract be\n public.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\n 29 October 2008'),(460463,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2173,'Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2173/1 (Power=1)\nRule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible\n for keeping track of contracts.\n track of contracts.\n\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s report includes\n this information for each public contract.\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\n 2008'),(460464,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2191/2 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(460465,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2145,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2145/5 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(460466,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2209,'Created by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,','Agoran Welcoming Committee','Agoran Welcoming Committee',1215386814,'Rule 2209/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Welcoming Committee\n\n The Greeter is an imposed office.\n\n While a partnership named \"Welcoming Committee\" exists, and its\n obligations include all of the following:\n\n a) Greet all new players.\n\n b) Engage in contact with new players to assist them.\n\n c) Engage in contact with new players to ensure a positive\n experience.\n\n then this office is imposed upon that partnership. Otherwise,\n this office is vacant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,\n Murphy), 29 June 2008'),(460467,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2174,'Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Aliens','Aliens',1215386814,'Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)\nAliens\n\n An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or\n more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an\n alien with one or more registered visas.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(460468,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2136,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2136/20 (Power=1)\nRule 2136/21 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n Any player CAN flip the contestmaster of a public contract\n without 3 objections, except if doing so would cause a player to\n be contestmaster of more than one contest, or it would flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly\n consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player\n intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this\n is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that\n contract.)\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008'),(497285,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2179,'Foreign Relations','Points','Points',1228006444,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\n For each point axis:\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\nRule 2136/23 (Power=2)\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\n\nRule 2187/4 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\nRule 2187/3 (Power=2)\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x\n + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n All other players have each of eir coordinates set to\n floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\n\n\n======================================================================\nForeign Relations\n A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including\n other nomics.'),(497148,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1227766571,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.]\n\n[CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time\nof Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule\nof higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English\nmeaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does\nmust be decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(496947,'rcs','00000001.00000886',2166,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008','Assets','Assets',1226705215,'Rule 2166/7 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an rule or contract\n (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because\n its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)\n defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That\n entity\'s report includes a list of all instances of that class\n and their owners. This portion of that entity\'s report is\n self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n A class of assets is public if its backing document is a rule or\n a public contract; otherwise it is private.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[CFJ 1910 (called 10 March 2008): When an existing entity is defined\nas an asset, the change of its owner from \"undefined\" to the Lost and\nFound Department [Bank at the time of CFJ 1910] counts as a transfer,\nand fails if the Lost and Found Department is outside of the class of\nobjects that can own the entity.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008'),(496942,'rcs','00000001.00000882',2166,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008','Assets','Assets',1226704757,'Rule 2166/6 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an rule or contract\n (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because\n its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)\n defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That\n entity\'s report includes a list of all instances of that class\n and their owners. This portion of that entity\'s report is\n self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[CFJ 1910 (called 10 March 2008): When an existing entity is defined\nas an asset, the change of its owner from \"undefined\" to the Lost and\nFound Department [Bank at the time of CFJ 1910] counts as a transfer,\nand fails if the Lost and Found Department is outside of the class of\nobjects that can own the entity.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008'),(496943,'rcs','00000001.00000882',2181,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1226704757,'Rule 2181/6 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of classes of assets.\n\n The Accountor\'s report includes a list of all classes of assets,\n and their backing documents and recordkeepors.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5598 (Wooble; disi.), 29 June 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5600 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008'),(496944,'rcs','00000001.00000883',754,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5834 (Goethe), 12 November 2008','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1226704875,'Rule 754/8 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning when used in any Rule of equal or lesser power, as\n do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by\n the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning. In\n determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term,\n definitions contained in lower-powered Rules, followed by\n definitions used in contracts or other Agoran legal\n documents, SHOULD be used for guidance.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without\nsurrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate\nanything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the\nURI.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI\nby default have no significance other than their functional role as\npart of the URI.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5834 (Goethe), 12 November 2008'),(496935,'rcs','00000001.00000877',1728,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1225600539,'Rule 1728/21 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a\n dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the\n action by at least one of the following methods (N is 1 if\n not otherwise specified):\n\n 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.\n 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.\n 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple\n of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.\n\n b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the\n action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and\n method (including the value of N), at most fourteen days\n earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least\n four days earlier.\n\n c) At least one of the following is true:\n\n 1) The performer is the initiator.\n\n 2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due\n to holding a rule-defined position now held by the\n performer.\n\n 3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the\n action depends on support, the performer has supported\n the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance\n does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing\n it.\n\n d) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by\n other rules.\n\n A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise\n permitted by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008'),(496936,'rcs','00000001.00000878',2154,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1225750407,'Rule 2154/18 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is\n resolved. A consenting candidate is a first-class player who was\n nominated during the first half of the nominating period and did\n not refuse, or any player who was nominated during the\n nominating period and accepted.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a)\n if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL\n install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two\n or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an\n Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process\n is known as an election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees\n the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible resolve the nomination as\n Failed by announcement; if the office is vacant e shall begin a\n new nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold\n the office as soon as possible.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n If at any time during an election there remains only one valid\n option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the\n remaining candidate in the office by announcement.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start\n of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder. This\n requirement is waived if the office comes to have an\n active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008'),(496937,'rcs','00000001.00000879',2179,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008','Points','Points',1225750655,'Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008'),(496938,'rcs','00000001.00000880',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1226105327,'Rule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496939,'rcs','00000001.00000881',2154,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Election Procedure','Election Procedure',1226106128,'Rule 2154/19 (Power=2)\nElection Procedure\n\n Any player CAN by announcement initiate an election for an\n elected office for which no election is already in progress,\n nominating at least one active player.\n\n During the first four days of the election (the nomination\n period), any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more\n active players.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, the IADoP\n SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder. For this decision:\n\n 1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active\n players who, during the election,\n\n a) received and accepted a nomination for the office\n before the decision was initiated (self-nomination\n constitutes acceptance), and\n\n b) did not decline a nomination for the office.\n\n The set of candidates can change after the decision is\n initiated.\n\n 2) The eligible voters are the active players.\n\n 3) Each eligible voter\'s voting limit is one. An ordered list\n of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for the\n first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the\n second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth.\n\n Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a\n candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496940,'rcs','00000001.00000881',2217,'Created by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Periodic Elections','Periodic Elections',1226106128,'Rule 2217/0 (Power=2)\nPeriodic Elections\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an elected office\'s stability without 2 objections. A\n Perpetual office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of\n that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder, or after\n an election for the office ends and the office fails to have\n an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office\n comes to have an active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496941,'rcs','00000001.00000881',2138,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1226106128,'Rule 2138/5 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP\'s\n report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2217)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2217)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008'),(496921,'rcs','00000001.00000864',2192,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5795 (Murphy), 26 October 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1225252248,'Rule 2192/4 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of\n the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and\n SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster\n fulfills all of its duties.\n\n The Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one).\n\n[Cross-references (23 April 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * act on behalf of the monster to fulfill its duties (rule 2192)\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5795 (Murphy), 26 October 2008'),(496922,'rcs','00000001.00000865',2216,'Created by Proposal 5794 (Murphy, Swann), 26 October 2008','The Repeal-o-Matic','The Repeal-o-Matic',1225252464,'Rule 2216/0 (Power=1)\nThe Repeal-o-Matic\n\n The Anarchist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n proposing the repeal of rules.\n\n The Anarchist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly five distinct rules.\n\n b) For one to three of these rules, submit a proposal, with\n adoption index equal to the Power of the rule, and interest\n index 0, to repeal the rule.\n\n[Cross-references (28 October 2008): the Anarchist\'s duties are:\n * propose repeal of rules (rule 2216)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5794 (Murphy, Swann), 26 October 2008'),(496888,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2197,'Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October','Defining Contract Changes','Defining Contract Changes',1223595575,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008'),(496889,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2173,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October','The Notary','The Notary',1223595575,'Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5628 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008'),(496890,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)',1223595575,'Rule 2191/3 (Power=2)\nRule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied\n obligations on its current parties, and will not do so in the\n future in its current form, then any person CAN terminate it by\n announcing that it is obsolete.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy, comex), 16 July 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496891,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2193,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5734 (Wooble), 9 October 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1223595575,'Rule 2193/20 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n\n The eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its Monsterising\n period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an\n ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising\n period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the\n chokey at that time.\n\n Some types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active\n while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on\n Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less\n than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended\n and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then\n the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5719 (comex), 7 October 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5734 (Wooble), 9 October 2008'),(496892,'rcs','00000001.00000839',2125,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1223595635,'Rule 2125/3 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if and only if:\n\n a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n b) It is ILLEGAL.\n\n c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which\n some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action\n CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the\n rules.\n\n f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and\n has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008'),(496893,'rcs','00000001.00000840',2193,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5740 (Pavitra, Wooble), 16 October 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1224194517,'Rule 2193/21 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired\n\n The eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its Monsterising\n period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an\n ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising\n period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the\n chokey at that time.\n\n Some types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active\n while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on\n Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less\n than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended\n and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then\n the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5719 (comex), 7 October 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5734 (Wooble), 9 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5740 (Pavitra, Wooble), 16 October 2008'),(496877,'rcs','00000001.00000837',2213,'Created by Rule 2193 (The Monster; ais523, on behalf of), 7 October','Scams to fix Scams','Scams to fix Scams',1223595030,'Rule 2213/0 (Power=1)\nScams to fix Scams[ters]\n\n ais523 can create and destroy points by announcement, in\n anyone\'s possession, and change the ownership of points by\n announcement. However, if point holdings are changed in this\n way, then 5 minutes later all points are destroyed and a number\n of points is created in each player\'s possession equal to the\n number of points they had 6 minutes earlier (i.e. 1 minute\n before the change).\n\n ais523 can flip the Publicity of a forum to Foreign by\n announcement, as long as that forum was Foreign at some point\n within the previous 7 days.\n\n ais523 can repeal this rule by announcement; this rule\n explicitly permits this change to the ruleset.\n\n ais523 CAN, MAY and may revoke the Patent Title Scamster from\n comex by announcement, and is authorized to do so. This takes\n precedence over all other rules, especially ones which say that\n Scamster cannot be revoked.\n\n[Note (9 October 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 2213.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Rule 2193 (The Monster; ais523, on behalf of), 7 October\n 2008'),(496878,'rcs','00000001.00000838',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1223595575,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February\n 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(496879,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2124,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1223595575,'Rule 2124/7 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a\n dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players\n to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21\n February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008'),(496880,'rcs','00000001.00000838',208,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1223595575,'Rule 208/7 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June\n 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(496881,'rcs','00000001.00000838',1607,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1223595575,'Rule 1607/18 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution\n of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the\n beginning of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal\ndistribution of either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(496882,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2156,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1223595575,'Rule 2156/8 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the\n following values and their numeric equivalents:\n\n Alpha - 8\n Beta - 5\n Gamma - 3\n Delta - 2\n Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and\n provinces)\n Savage - 0 (default for all other players)\n\n Changes to caste are secured.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008'),(496883,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2134,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1223595575,'Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default\n value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the\n remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008'),(496884,'rcs','00000001.00000838',2126,'Amended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July','Notes','Notes',1223595575,'Rule 2126/56 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008'),(496885,'rcs','00000001.00000838',649,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1223595575,'Rule 649/27 (Power=1.5)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February\n 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(496874,'rcs','00000001.00000835',2193,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1223520332,'Rule 2193/19 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled\n\n\n The eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its Monsterising\n period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an\n ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising\n period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the\n chokey at that time.\n\n Some types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active\n while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on\n Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less\n than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended\n and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then\n the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5719 (comex), 7 October 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008'),(496875,'rcs','00000001.00000836',101,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1223520781,'Rule 101/8 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights. Be\n it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation\n of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person\'s\n defined rights. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights.\n\n i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the\n ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or\n regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of\n changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules\n explicitly or implicitly permit it.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008'),(496876,'rcs','00000001.00000836',1504,'Amended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1223520781,'Rule 1504/30 (Power=2)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the\n prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform,\n appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the\n severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the\n consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any\n other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or\n insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive\n service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence\n of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the\n prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time\n limit is specified).\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register, rules to\n the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008'),(496870,'rcs','00000001.00000833',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1223511670,'Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is\n rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the\n judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior\n question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be\n assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior\n case will not make a better judgement if given a new\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496871,'rcs','00000001.00000834',869,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1223519945,'Rule 869/26 (Power=2)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered. Changes to\n citizenship are secured.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register by announcing that e registers, wishes to\n register, requests registration, or requests permission to\n register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008'),(496872,'rcs','00000001.00000834',1504,'Amended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1223519945,'Rule 1504/30 (Power=2)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the\n prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform,\n appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the\n severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the\n consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any\n other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or\n insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive\n service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence\n of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the\n prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time\n limit is specified).\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register, rules to\n the contrary notwithstanding.\n \n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008'),(496873,'rcs','00000001.00000835',2154,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1223520332,'Rule 2154/16 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is\n resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated\n during the first half of the nominating period and did not\n refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and\n accepted.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a)\n if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL\n install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two\n or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an\n Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process\n is known as an election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees\n and the office is vacant, the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible,\n resolve the nomination as Failed by announcement and begin a new\n nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold the\n office.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n If at any time during an election there remains only one valid\n option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the\n remaining candidate in the office by announcement.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start\n of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder. This\n requirement is waived if the office comes to have an\n active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008'),(496823,'rcs','00000001.00000804',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1219992168,'Rule 911/21 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered\n open again\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n question is rendered open again\n \n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(497227,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Pledges','Pledges',1227766571,'Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a public contract identifying itself as such. A\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied\n obligations on its current parties, and will not do so in the\n future in its current form, then any person CAN terminate it by\n announcing that it is obsolete.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy, comex), 16 July 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(497198,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1698,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Agora Is a Nomic','Agora Is a Nomic',1227766571,'Rule 1698/1 (Power=3)\nAgora Is a Nomic\n\n In the interest of safeguarding Agora\'s nomic-ness, if a change\n to the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make\n arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a\n four-week period by any combinations of actions by players, then\n that change is canceled and does not occur, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997\nRetitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(497199,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2156,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5985 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Rule 2156/9 (Power=2)','Rule 2156/9 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 2156/11 (Power=2)\nRule 2156/9 (Power=2)\n\n Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the\n following values and their numeric equivalents:\n\n Alpha - 8\n Beta - 5\n Gamma - 3\n Delta - 2\n Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and\n provinces)\n Savage - 0 (default for all other players)\n\n Changes to caste are secured, lest a coalition of high-caste\n players grant itself a boring permanence.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5985 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497200,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2142,'History:','Rule 2211/2 (Power=2)','Rule 2211/2 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2211/2 (Power=2)\nThe Grand Poobah\nHistory:\n The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of castes.'),(497201,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2126,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 2126/58 (Power=2)\nRule 2134/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default\n value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the\n remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008'),(496933,'rcs','00000001.00000876',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Pledges','Pledges',1225600402,'Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a public contract identifying itself as such. A\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied\n obligations on its current parties, and will not do so in the\n future in its current form, then any person CAN terminate it by\n announcing that it is obsolete.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy, comex), 16 July 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496934,'rcs','00000001.00000877',478,'Amended(26) by proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008','Fora','Fora',1225600539,'Rule 478/26 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by unambiguously\n and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs\n it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at\n the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1905 (called 7 February 2008): Regardless of CFJ 1314, a message\nhas not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to\nreceive messages via the forum receive it.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008'),(496967,'rcs','00000001.00000896',591,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1227062017,'Rule 591/27 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008'),(497286,'rcs','00000001.00000904',402,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1228006444,'Rule 402/26 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\nRule 402/25 (Power=1)\n The office of Speaker is held by the active player who has borne\n the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with\n The Speaker is the active player who has borne the Patent Title\n of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 103/5 (Power=1)\nRole of the Speaker\nRule 103/4 (Power=1)\n The Speaker is an imposed office, and the figurehead of Agora,\n embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nPower changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 2148/3 (Power=1)\nThe Ambassador\nRule 2148/2 (Power=1)\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the\n ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador.\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(497206,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2225,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008','Rule 2175/3 (Power=1)','Rule 2175/3 (Power=1)',1227766571,'Rule 2225/0 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2175/3 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n If a judicial case (other than an appeal case) has not had any\n judge assigned to it, then:\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case'),(497207,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1868,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1227766571,'Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(497208,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1871,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5771 (root), 17 October 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1227766571,'Rule 1871/25 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e CAN flip\n that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely\n fashion.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5771 (root), 17 October 2008'),(497209,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2204,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Linked Assignments','Linked Assignments',1227766571,'Rule 2204/0 (Power=1.5)\nLinked Assignments\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts assigns a player as judge of two or\n more judicial cases consecutively in the same announcement, that\n player only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules\n to the contrary notwithstanding. The CotC SHOULD NOT do this\n unless those cases are closely related in their subject matter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497197,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1950,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5602 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Rule 1450/9 (Power=2)','Rule 1450/9 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 1950/20 (Power=3)\nRule 1450/9 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Lest the entire proposal process fall under the control of a\n single entity, any change that would result in the same entity\n holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is\n canceled and does not occur, rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5602 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496929,'rcs','00000001.00000873',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1225597913,'Rule 2169/8 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496930,'rcs','00000001.00000874',2193,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5814 (ehird), 1 November 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1225600147,'Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired\n\n The eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its Monsterising\n period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an\n ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising\n period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the\n chokey at that time.\n\n Some types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active\n while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on\n Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less\n than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended\n and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then\n the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n _ _ | | \\__/\n _/0\\/ \\_ \\___=_ ___|\n .-. .-` \\_/\\0/ \'-. MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n /:::\\ / ,_________, \\\n /\\:::/ \\ \'. (:::/ `\'-; /\\__\n \\ `-\'`\\ \'._ `\"\'\"\'\\__ \\ | |\n `\'-. \\ `)-=-=( `, | | /\n jgs \\ `-\"` `\"-` / \\_/ <- HOBART\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5636 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5719 (comex), 7 October 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5734 (Wooble), 9 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5740 (Pavitra, Wooble), 16 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5814 (ehird), 1 November 2008'),(496931,'rcs','00000001.00000875',1789,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1225600352,'Rule 1789/4 (Power=2)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled\n a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir\n reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the\n Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of\n deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports,\n as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October\n 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496932,'rcs','00000001.00000875',1922,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1225600352,'Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from\n all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar (whichever\n one gets around to it first) to any player who deregistered\n in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5805 (Murphy, Zefram), 29 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496928,'rcs','00000001.00000872',2192,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5810 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1225597687,'Rule 2192/5 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of\n the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and\n SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster\n fulfills all of its duties.\n\n The Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one).\n\n e) Randomly select exactly one paragraph from the rule \"The\n Monster\", other than its first paragraph.\n\n f) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n that rule, and interest index 0, to remove the selected text\n from that rule.\n\n[Cross-references (23 April 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * act on behalf of the monster to fulfill its duties (rule 2192)\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5795 (Murphy), 26 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5810 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496919,'rcs','00000001.00000862',2179,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)',1224728713,'Rule 2179/2 (Power=2)\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\nPoints\n\n restricted to players. Changes to point holdings are secured.\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008'),(496920,'rcs','00000001.00000863',2216,'Created by Proposal 5794 (Murphy, Swann), 26 October 2008','The Repeal-o-Matic','The Repeal-o-Matic',1225252187,'Rule 2216/0 (Power=1)\nThe Repeal-o-Matic\n\n The Anarchist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n proposing the repeal of rules.\n\n The Anarchist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly five distinct rules.\n\n b) For one to three of these rules, submit a proposal, with\n adoption index equal to the Power of the rule, and interest\n index 0, to repeal the rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5794 (Murphy, Swann), 26 October 2008'),(496831,'rcs','00000001.00000805',2193,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1220317995,'Rule 2193/13 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by\n the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by\n the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD\n assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case.\n sentencing in that case.\n Agoran Monsters begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008'),(496824,'rcs','00000001.00000805',2210,'Created by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','Caste Bootstrapping','Caste Bootstrapping',1220317995,'Rule 2210/0 (Power=2)\nCaste Bootstrapping\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting limit of an\n eligible voter on an ordinary decision whose voting period\n started (time T_s) before castes were defined (time T_c) is\n based on T_c rather than T_s. This rule repeals itself once\n the voting periods of all such decisions have ended.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496825,'rcs','00000001.00000805',2211,'Created by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','The Grand Poobah','The Grand Poobah',1220317995,'Rule 2211/0 (Power=2)\nThe Grand Poobah\n\n The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of castes.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to\n eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of\n each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order,\n at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet\n been chosen during the current procedure:\n\n 1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a\n player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling\n or exceeding the new caste:\n\n a) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha\n b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta\n c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma\n d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta\n\n 2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.\n\n b->c) While there are more than two Betas,\n flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma\n c->d) While there are more than three Gammas,\n flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta\n d->e) While there are more than four Deltas,\n flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496826,'rcs','00000001.00000805',2019,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1220317995,'Rule 2019/17 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent\n title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose which\n members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes\n to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either\n hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done\n so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to\n that case during this period. If the Justiciar has done so,\n then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including\n (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the\n Justiciar, if possible.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the\n start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting\n limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be\n otherwise (rounded using the same method as the weekly update\n of EVLOD), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5606 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496827,'rcs','00000001.00000805',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)',1220317995,'Rule 1742/16 (Power=1.5)\nRule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.\n\n Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not\n otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or\n more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and\n governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have\n at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a\n Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract, the only\n appropriate sentence is DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with\n respect to a previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(496828,'rcs','00000001.00000805',2173,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)',1220317995,'Rule 2173/3 (Power=1)\nRule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\n 2008'),(496829,'rcs','00000001.00000805',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)',1220317995,'Rule 2191/3 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied obligations\n on its current parties, and will not do so in the future in its\n current form, then any person CAN terminate it by announcing that\n it is obsolete.\n announcing that it is obsolete.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496830,'rcs','00000001.00000805',2187,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1220317995,'Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008'),(496299,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player is deregistered from the game while not\n Immaculate, e becomes a Fugitive from Justice, and e receives\n Fugitive Blots equal to the number of Blots e then had. The\n Herald shall keep a record of the number of Fugitive Blots\n attributed to each Fugitive from Justice.\n\n At the beginning of each month, the Herald shall halve the\n number of Fugitive Blots attributed to each Fugitive of Justice,\n rounding down; but no Fugitive from Justice shall have the\n number of Fugitive Blots attributed to em reduced to less than\n one by this method.\n\n When a Fugitive from Justice reregisters, the Herald shall\n assess against em a number of Blots equal to the number of\n Fugitive Blots attributed to em at the time of eir\n reregistration. Eir Fugitive Blots are then removed.\n\n'),(496300,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player is deregistered from the game while not\n Immaculate, e becomes a Fugitive from Justice. The Herald\n shall continue to keep a record of the number Blots staining\n each Fugitive from Justice.\n\n At the beginning of each month, the Herald shall halve the\n number of Blots staining each Fugitive of Justice, rounding\n down; but no Fugitive from Justice shall have eir number of\n Blots reduced to less than one by this method.\n\n When a Fugitive from Justice reregisters, e ceases to be a\n Fugitive from Justice. The act of reregistration causes\n no change in eir number of Blots.\n\n'),(496301,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player deregisters or is deregistered, e keeps eir Stain\n (though it may be modified by other Rules). A non-Player with a\n non-zero Stain is known as a Fugitive from Justice.\n\n At the beginning of the month, the Herald shall expunge half the\n Blots of each Fugitive from Justice; however, no Fugitive from\n Justice shall have eir Stain reduced to less than one by this\n method.\n\n'),(496302,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1437 by Proposal 4921 (Zefram), 2 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496303,'zefram',NULL,1438,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1495, 15 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Punitive Point Loss is a point loss that results in gaining\n Blots.\n\n Whenever a Rule calls for a Punitive Point loss, the Player\n losing Points will receive Blots equal to half the number of\n Points lost, rounded down.\n\n Punitive Point Losses are those losses *not* due to:\n\n i) Voluntary transfers of Points to any other Player or any\n other Nomic Entity.\n ii) Voluntary destruction of a Player\'s own Points.\n iii) the direct result of submission of or Voting on a Proposal\n iv) Adjustments made as part of a correction in the Game\n State.\n v) The reset of scores due to the end of a Game.\n vi) A score change that a Rule specifically designates as\n Non-Punitive.\n vii) Rules that also adjust the number of Blots a Player has.\n\n Further, a Point Loss ceases to be Punitive when the Rule\n mandating the Loss is amended to explicitly state either of the\n following:\n\n i) The Rule does not impose a Blot penalty.\n ii) The Rule does impose a Blot penalty, the amount of the\n Blot penalty, and the Player responsible for reporting\n those Blots to the Tabulator.\n\n Players Legally Responsible for reporting Punitive Point losses\n to the Scorekeepor also have the Legal Responsibility to report\n Blots due to those Punitive Point losses to the Tabulator.\n\n This Rule shall remain in effect until there are no longer any\n Punitive Point Losses defined in the Ruleset, at which point\n this Rule will repeal itself.\n\n'),(496304,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1439 by Proposal 1460, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated\n Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if\n its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the\n wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in\n the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot\n penalties in the case of a CFJ.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal\n Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Tabulator.\n\n'),(496305,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1674, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated\n Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if\n its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the\n wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in\n the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot\n penalties in the case of a CFJ.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal\n Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Tabulator.\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the\n Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of\n Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the\n CFJ, unless e already had fewer than that number of Blots,\n in which case e shall lose all his Blots. The Player losing\n the Blots has responsibility for reporting that loss to the\n Tabulator\n\n'),(496306,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 2879 (favor), 25 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated\n Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if\n its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the\n wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in\n the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot\n penalties in the case of a CFJ.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal\n Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Herald\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the\n Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of\n Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the\n CFJ, unless e already had fewer than that number of Blots,\n in which case e shall lose all his Blots. The Player losing\n the Blots has responsibility for reporting that loss to the\n Herald.\n\n'),(496307,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgment (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated\n Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if\n its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the\n wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in\n the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot\n penalties in the case of a CFJ.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal\n Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Herald\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the\n Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of\n Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the\n CFJ. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for\n reporting that loss to the Herald.\n\n'),(496308,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(4) Cosmetically by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), 19 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Mutability Index of the violated\n Rule rounded down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if\n its Mutability Index exceeds four. This Rule defers to the\n wording of the violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in\n the specific case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot\n penalties in the case of a CFJ.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal\n Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Herald\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the\n Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of\n Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the\n CFJ. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for\n reporting that loss to the Herald.\n\n'),(496309,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 3500 (Crito; disi.), 3 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Power of the violated Rule rounded\n down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its\n Power exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the\n violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific\n case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the\n case of a CFJ.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ has the Legal\n Responsibility to report Blots due to the CFJ to the Herald\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the\n Player who received Blots shall lose the same number of\n Blots as were given due to the initial Judgement of the\n CFJ. The Player losing the Blots has responsibility for\n reporting that loss to the Herald.\n\n'),(496310,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Power of the violated Rule rounded\n down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its\n Power exceeds four. This Rule defers to the wording of the\n violated Rule when it defines a Blot penalty in the specific\n case of a CFJ, or specifically forbids Blot penalties in the\n case of a CFJ.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ shall make the\n Payment Orders necessary to apply the Blots.\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the Player\n who received Blots shall vacate the Blots that were given due to\n the initial Judgement of the CFJ.\n\n'),(496320,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who has at least one Blot is permitted to remove any or\n all of those Blots by sending a message to the Public Forum\n indicating how many Blots e wishes to remove. If that Player\'s\n Treasury contains at least five Mil for each Blot to be\n removed, then that number of Mil is transferred from the\n Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no\n Mil are transferred and no Blots are removed.\n\n The Banker shall detect and report all transfers and Blot\n Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496319,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who has at least one Blot is permitted to remove any or\n all of those Blots by sending a message to the Public Forum\n indicating how many Blots e wishes to remove. If that Player\'s\n Treasury contains at least five Mils for each Blot to be\n removed, then that number of Mils is transferred from the\n Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no\n Points are transferred and no Blots are removed.\n\n The Banker shall detect and report all transfers and Blot\n Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496317,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2472, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who has at least one Blot is permitted to remove any or\n all of those Blots by sending a message to the Public Forum\n indicating how many Blots e wishes to remove. If that Player\'s\n Treasury contains at least five Points for each Blot to be\n removed, then that number of Points is transferred from the\n Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no\n Points are transferred and no Blots are removed.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers and Blot\n Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496318,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who has at least one Blot is permitted to remove any or\n all of those Blots by sending a message to the Public Forum\n indicating how many Blots e wishes to remove. If that Player\'s\n Treasury contains at least five Mils for each Blot to be\n removed, then that number of Mils is transferred from the\n Player\'s Treasury, and the Blots are removed; otherwise, no\n Mils are transferred and no Blots are removed.\n\n The Banker shall detect and report all transfers and Blot\n Changes resulting from the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496312,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Violating a Rule is the Class N Crime of Disobedience, unless\n other Rules define or prohibit a penalty for the violation. N\n is the Power of the violated Rule (rounded down to the nearest\n multiple of the MUQ of Indulgences), but shall not exceed 4.\n\n'),(496313,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Violating a Rule is the Class N Crime of Disobedience, unless\n other Rules define or prohibit a penalty for the violation. N\n is the Power of the violated Rule (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), or 4, whichever is less.\n\n'),(496314,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1439 by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496315,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1440 by Proposal 1461, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each\n Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as e\n does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with less\n than five Points may not Erase Blots.\n\n The Player Erasing Blots must report to the Tabulator and the\n Scorekeepor the number of Blots e is Erasing, and the Points\n required to do so.\n\n If this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of\n the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost.\n\n If there are sufficient Points, the Scorekeepor reduces the\n Player\'s Points by the required amount and the Tabulator reduces\n the Player\'s Blots as requested.\n\n Other rules may define additional methods of Erasing Blots.\n\n'),(496316,'zefram',NULL,1440,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1613, 10 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may Erase eir Blots by spending five Points for each\n Blot Erased. A Player may Erase any number of Blots as long as\n e does not reduce eir Point total below zero. A Player with\n less than five Points may not Erase Blots.\n\n The Player must notify both the Scorekeepor and the Tabulator,\n in the Public Forum, of the number of Blots e is erasing, and\n the number of Points e is spending to do so.\n\n If this requires more Points than the Player has at the time of\n the request, then no Blots are erased, and no Points are lost.\n\n If there are sufficient Points, the Player\'s Point and Blot\n totals are reduced by the requested amount.\n\n Other rules may define additional methods of Erasing Blots.\n\n'),(496311,'zefram',NULL,1439,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), 8 December 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Power of the violated Rule rounded\n down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its\n Power exceeds four, unless the violated Rule explicitly defines\n or forbids a Blot penalty in the case of a CFJ. The penalty\n shall be as defined in the Rule, if the Rule defines it; no Blot\n penalty shall be imposed if the Rule forbids it.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ shall notify the\n Herald of the Blot assessment.\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the Player\n who received Blots shall expunge the Blots that were given due\n to the initial Judgement of the CFJ and notify the Herald of\n this action.\n\n'),(496287,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murhpy), 22 March 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ)\n of Indulgences is 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is\n the Herald.\n\n'),(496288,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1435 by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496289,'zefram',NULL,1436,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1494, 15 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be the Office of Tabulator. A vacant Office of\n Tabulator is filled in the usual manner, but the Scorekeepor or\n Herald may not become Tabulator, nor may the Tabulator become\n Scorekeepor or Herald.\"\n\n The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of\n the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players\n who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined\n in the Rules.\n\n Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a\n report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned\n Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the\n reason for the gain in Blots.\n\n The Tabulator\'s salary shall be four Points per Week.\n\n If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also\n specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for\n detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the\n change in Blots is canceled.\n\n If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its\n occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred,\n whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.\n\n'),(496290,'zefram',NULL,1436,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be the Office of Tabulator. A vacant Office of\n Tabulator is filled in the usual manner, but the Scorekeepor or\n Herald may not become Tabulator, nor may the Tabulator become\n Scorekeepor or Herald.\n\n The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of\n the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players\n who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined\n in the Rules.\n\n Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a\n report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned\n Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the\n reason for the gain in Blots.\n\n The Tabulator\'s salary shall be four Points per Week.\n\n If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also\n specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for\n detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the\n change in Blots is canceled.\n\n If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its\n occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred,\n whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.\n\n'),(496291,'zefram',NULL,1436,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Tabulator.\n\n The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of\n the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players\n who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined\n in the Rules.\n\n Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a\n report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned\n Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the\n reason for the gain in Blots.\n\n The Tabulator\'s salary shall be four Points per Week.\n\n If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also\n specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for\n detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the\n change in Blots is canceled.\n\n If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its\n occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred,\n whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.\n\n'),(496292,'zefram',NULL,1436,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Tabulator.\n\n The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of\n the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players\n who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined\n in the Rules.\n\n Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a\n report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned\n Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the\n reason for the gain in Blots.\n\n The Tabulator\'s salary shall be four Mils per Week.\n\n If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also\n specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for\n detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the\n change in Blots is canceled.\n\n If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its\n occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred,\n whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.\n\n'),(496293,'zefram',NULL,1436,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Tabulator.\n\n The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of\n the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players\n who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined\n in the Rules.\n\n Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a\n report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned\n Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the\n reason for the gain in Blots.\n\n The Tabulator shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times\n the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also\n specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for\n detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the\n change in Blots is canceled.\n\n If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its\n occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred,\n whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.\n\n'),(496294,'zefram',NULL,1436,'Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Tabulator.\n\n The Tabulator is the Officer responsible for keeping track of\n the Blots possessed by each Player, as well as all ex-Players\n who have Blots. The Tabulator may have other duties as defined\n in the Rules.\n\n Once a Week The Tabulator shall post to the Public Forum a\n report of the Blots held by each Player. If a Player has earned\n Blots since the last report, this report must publicize the\n reason for the gain in Blots.\n\n The Tabulator shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times\n the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n If any Rule mandates a change in Blots, but does not also\n specifically state the Player who is Legally Responsible for\n detecting the change and reporting it to the Tabulator, then the\n change in Blots is canceled.\n\n If a Blot change is not reported within four Weeks of its\n occurrence, or by the end of the Game in which it occurred,\n whichever is sooner, the change in Blots is cancelled.\n\n'),(496295,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1437 by Proposal 1458, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player who is not Immaculate is deregistered and\n subsequently returns to the Game, e returns with B/(2^T) Blots,\n where B is the number of Blots the Player had upon\n deregistering, and T is the number of months since eir\n deregistration. The number of Blots thus received is rounded\n down to the next whole integer, but not reduced below one Blot.\n\n If a Immaculate Player deregisters, e is also Immaculate upon\n returning to the Game.\n\n If a former Player returns to the Game and has no Blots\n recorded, e is Immaculate upon eir return.\n\n Blot Changes due to this Rule are detected and reported by the\n Tabulator.\n\n'),(496296,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 2789 (favor), 25 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player who is not Immaculate is deregistered and\n subsequently returns to the Game, e returns with B/(2^T) Blots,\n where B is the number of Blots the Player had upon\n deregistering, and T is the number of months since eir\n deregistration. The number of Blots thus received is rounded\n down to the next whole integer, but not reduced below one Blot.\n\n If a Immaculate Player deregisters, e is also Immaculate upon\n returning to the Game.\n\n If a former Player returns to the Game and has no Blots\n recorded, e is Immaculate upon eir return.\n\n Blot Changes due to this Rule are detected and reported by the\n Herald.\n\n'),(496297,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player who is not Immaculate is deregistered and\n subsequently returns to the Game, e receives B/(2^T)\n Blots, where B is the number of Blots the Player had upon\n deregistering, and T is the number of months since eir\n deregistration. The number of Blots thus received is rounded\n down to the next whole integer, but not reduced below one Blot.\n\n However, if a former Player returns to the Game and has no Blots\n recorded, e receives no Blots upon eir return.\n\n Blot Changes due to this Rule are detected and reported by\n the Herald.\n\n'),(496298,'zefram',NULL,1437,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Player is deregistered from the game while not\n Immaculate, e becomes a Fugitive from Justice, and e receives\n Fugitive Blots equal to the number of Blots e then had. The\n Herald shall keep a record of the number of Fugitive Blots\n attributed to each Fugitive from Justice.\n\n At the beginning of each month, the Herald shall halve the\n number of Fugitive Blots attributed to each Fugitive of Justice,\n rounding down; but no Fugitive from Justice shall have the\n number of Fugitive Blots attributed to em reduced to less than\n one by this method.\n\n When a Fugitive from Justice reregisters, the Herald shall\n assess against em a number of Blots equal to the number of\n Fugitive Blots attributed to em at the time of eir\n reregistration. Eir Fugitive Blots are then removed.\n\n'),(496274,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Determining whether to adopt a referendum is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the eligible voters are the players.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the referendum is adopted, and unless other rules prevent\n it from taking effect, it takes effect. It does not otherwise\n take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would permit a referendum to take effect.\n\n'),(496273,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: During the Voting period a Voter may change or\n cancel any Vote e has sent to the Vote Collector by notifying\n the Vote Collector.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the\n beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then\n the Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n'),(496272,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the\n beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then\n the Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n'),(496271,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4629 (Murphy), 19 December 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the\n beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then\n the Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not\n challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector\n announces them, then the announced results are the true\n results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in\n error.\n\n'),(496270,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is 50% of the eligible Voters at the beginning\n of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not\n challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector\n announces them, then the announced results are the true\n results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in\n error.\n\n'),(496269,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: A Voter is an entity permitted to Vote on a\n Referendum. Only Active Players are Voters. Activity is\n measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is 50% of the eligible Voters at the beginning\n of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not\n challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector\n announces them, then the announced results are the true\n results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in\n error.\n\n'),(496268,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote\n Collector.\n\n * Voters: Only Active Players may Vote on a Referendum.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must\n include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from publishing\n at any time a list of those Players who have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall publish, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n Adoption Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index\n for a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voters\n at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction\n voted, the Referendum automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are published.\n\n'),(496267,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), 15 January 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote\n Collector.\n\n * Voters: Only Active Players may Vote on a Referendum.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public\n Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting,\n at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who\n have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n Adoption Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index\n for a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voters\n at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction\n voted, the Referendum automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are announced to the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(496266,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), 14 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote\n Collector.\n\n * Voters: Only Active Players may Vote on a Referendum.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public\n Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting,\n at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who\n have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n Adotion Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index\n for a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voters\n at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction\n voted, the Referendum automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are announced to the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(496265,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), 26 July 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote\n Collector.\n\n * Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a\n Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player\n sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public\n Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting,\n at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who\n have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n Adotion Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index\n for a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting\n Entities at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller\n fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are announced to the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(496264,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), 15 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible\n for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.\n\n * Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a\n Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player\n sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public\n Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting,\n at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who\n have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n Adotion Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index\n for a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting\n Entities at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller\n fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are announced to the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(496263,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 2783 (Steve), 15 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible\n for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.\n\n * Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a\n Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player\n sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public\n Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting,\n at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who\n have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n 1 for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum\n fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting\n Entities at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller\n fraction voted, the Referendum automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are announced to the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(496262,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2585, 1 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible\n for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.\n\n * Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a\n Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player\n sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public\n Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting,\n at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who\n have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n 1 for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum\n fails.\n\n * Quorum: The Quorum, the smallest allowable fraction of\n eligible Voting Entities which actually Vote on a particular\n Referendum, is 50%. If a smaller fraction Voted, the Referendum\n automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are announced to the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(496261,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2543, 19 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible\n for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.\n\n * Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a\n Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player\n sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules, is sent to the Public\n Forum, together with the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n 1 for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum\n fails.\n\n * Quorum: The Quorum, the smallest allowable fraction of\n eligible Voting Entities which actually Vote on a particular\n Referendum, is 50%. If a smaller fraction Voted, the Referendum\n automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are announced to the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(496258,'zefram',NULL,1433,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one\n simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end.\n When a Game ends due to a Win:\n\n - For every Treasury other than the Bank, if that Treasury\n possesses Points, a commensurate number of Marks computed\n using the secondary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from\n the Bank to that Treasury, and all Points in that Treasury\n are transferred to the Bank. These transfers are to be\n detected and reported by the Scorekeepor.\n\n - A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the\n status they had at the end of the old Game.\n\n'),(496259,'zefram',NULL,1433,'Amended(5) by proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one\n simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end.\n When a Game ends due to a Win:\n\n - A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the\n status they had at the end of the old Game.\n\n'),(496260,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1434 by Proposal 1456, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure is specifically NOT to be used for Proposal\n Voting until this Rule is amended to remove this restriction,\n and the Proposal Rules are amended accordingly.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is the Entity responsible\n for collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n This Entity is the Speaker if not otherwise specified.\n\n * Voting Entities: Every Player not on Hold may Vote on a\n Referendum. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player\n sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins when a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall post to the Public Forum, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n 1 for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the Referendum\n fails.\n\n * Quorum: The Quorum, the smallest allowable fraction of\n eligible Voting Entities which actually Vote on a particular\n Referendum, is 50%. If a smaller fraction Voted, the Referendum\n automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n'),(496257,'zefram',NULL,1433,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2471, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one\n simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end.\n When a Game ends due to a Win:\n\n - If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the\n Speaker-Elect. If there was already a Speaker-Elect, the old\n Speaker-Elect ceases to be Speaker-Elect.\n\n - If there is more than one Winner, the Winner with the\n highest Point total becomes the Speaker-Elect. If more than\n one Winner is tied for the highest score, the Speaker\n randomly selects one of them to be Speaker-Elect. If there\n was already a Speaker-Elect, the old Speaker-Elect ceases to\n be Speaker-Elect.\n\n - For every Treasury other than the Bank, if that Treasury\n possesses Points, a commensurate number of Marks computed\n using the secondary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from\n the Bank to that Treasury, and all Points in that Treasury\n are transferred to the Bank. These transfers are to be\n detected and reported by the Scorekeepor.\n\n - A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the\n status they had at the end of the old Game.\n\n'),(496256,'zefram',NULL,1433,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1691, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one\n simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end.\n When a Game ends due to a Win:\n\n - If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the\n Speaker-Elect. If there was already a Speaker-Elect, the old\n Speaker-Elect ceases to be Speaker-Elect.\n\n - If there is more than one Winner, the Winner with the\n highest Point total becomes the Speaker-Elect. If more than\n one Winner is tied for the highest score, the Speaker\n randomly selects one of them to be Speaker-Elect. If there\n was already a Speaker-Elect, the old Speaker-Elect ceases to\n be Speaker-Elect.\n\n - For every Treasury other than the Bank, if that Treasury\n possesses Points, a commensurate number of Marks computed\n using the secondary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from\n the Bank to that Treasury, and all Points in that Treasury\n are transferred to the Bank. These transfers are to be\n detected and reported by the Scorekeepor.\n\n - A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the\n status they had at the end of the old Game.\n\n'),(496255,'zefram',NULL,1433,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Game ends when a Win occurs. If there is more than one\n simultaneous Winner, there is nevertheless only one Game end.\n When a Game ends due to a Win:\n\n - If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the\n Speaker-Elect. If there was already a Speaker-Elect, the old\n Speaker-Elect ceases to be Speaker-Elect.\n\n - If there is more than one Winner, the Winner with the\n highest Point total becomes the Speaker-Elect. If more than\n one Winner is tied for the highest score, the Speaker\n randomly selects one of them to be Speaker-Elect. If there\n was already a Speaker-Elect, the old Speaker-Elect ceases to\n be Speaker-Elect.\n\n - All Points held in the Treasuries of Players are transferred\n to the Bank.\n\n - A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the\n status they had at the end of the old Game.\n\n'),(496254,'zefram',NULL,1432,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2718, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Person becomes a Player, then ceases to be a Player, then\n becomes a Player once again, the Person becomes the same Player\n as e was previously. Further, no person may be registered as a\n Player more than once concurrently.\n\n'),(496252,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1431 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496253,'zefram',NULL,1432,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1432 by Proposal 1438, 21 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Person becomes a Player, then ceases to be a Player, then\n becomes a Player once again, the Person becomes the same Player\n as e was previously.\n\n'),(496251,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4380 (Steve), 11 September 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a public message claiming that a specific\n public communication misrepresents the actual Game State, and\n documenting the nature of the error. The person who sent the\n original communication is hereafter known as the Journalist, and\n the portion of the communication claimed to be in error is\n hereafter known as the Yellow Document.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error is a public message from the\n Journalist that either admits or denies the claim. An admission\n is not valid until the Journalist posts a corrected version of\n the Yellow Document.\n\n If the Journalist was required by the Rules to publish the\n information in the Yellow Document, then e must publish a\n Response as soon as possible, unless one of the following holds:\n\n a) E has already published a correction.\n b) A previous Claim was made concerning the same error.\n c) The Claim was posted more than three weeks after the Yellow\n Document.\n d) The Claim is in dispute. If the Claim ceases to be in\n dispute, then the Journalist must publish a Response as\n soon as possible after it ceases to be in dispute.\n\n If the Journalist was not required by the Rules to publish the\n information in the Yellow Document, then e is encouraged (but\n not required) to publish a Response in a timely fashion.\n\n A Player who incorrectly denies a Claim commits the Class 1\n Crime of Implausible Deniability. However, if e admits the\n Claim within three days after the incorrect denial, then e shall\n not be convicted of this Crime.\n\n'),(496250,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a public message to the effect that a\n specific public communication misrepresents the actual Game\n State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial\n of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is\n admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to\n post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message\n which was in error, before one week passes from the time the\n Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does\n not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that\n Claim.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n * the Claim is in dispute\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response within the allotted time\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be\n reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who\n incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of\n Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the\n Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.\n\n'),(496249,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), 15 January 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a public message to the effect that a\n specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game\n State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial\n of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is\n admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to\n post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message\n which was in error, before one week passes from the time the\n Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does\n not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that\n Claim.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n * the Claim is in dispute\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response within the allotted time\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be\n reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who\n incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of\n Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the\n Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.\n\n'),(496248,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a public message to the effect that a\n specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents the actual Game\n State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial\n of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is\n admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to\n post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message\n which was in error, before one week passes from the time the\n Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does\n not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that\n Claim.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be\n reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who\n incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of\n Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the\n Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.\n\n'),(496247,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the\n effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents\n the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error consists in posting to the Public\n Forum either a denial of the Claim or an admission of the\n Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then the Player making the\n admission is required to post a corrected version of the\n relevant portion of the message which was in error, before one\n week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player\n who admits a Claim but does not publish a correction is deemed\n not to have Responded to that Claim.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be\n reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who\n incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of\n Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the\n Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.\n\n'),(496246,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3528 (Steve), 8 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the\n effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents\n the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error consists in posting to the Public\n Forum either a denial of the Claim or an admission of the\n Claim. If the Claim is admitted, then the Player making the\n admission is required to post a corrected version of the\n relevant portion of the message which was in error, before one\n week passes from the time the Claim of Error was made. A Player\n who admits a Claim but does not publish a correction is deemed\n not to have Responded to that Claim.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time\n commits the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a\n penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the\n Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim\n commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime,\n unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the\n incorrect denial.\n\n'),(496245,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3456 (Murphy), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the\n effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents\n the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error consists in posting to the Public\n Forum either a denial of the Claim, or an admission of the\n Claim, which shall then include a corrected version of the\n portion of the relevant message which was in error. A Response\n denying a Claim may be superseded by a second Response admitting\n that Claim.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response within the alloted time\n commits the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a\n penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the\n Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim\n commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime,\n unless e then admits the Claim within 72 hours after the\n incorrect denial.\n\n'),(496244,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(8) Cosmetically by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the\n effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents\n the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error consists in posting to the Public\n Forum either a denial of the Claim, or an admission of the\n Claim, which shall then include a corrected version of the\n portion of the relevant message which was in error.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response whithin the alloted time\n commits the Infraction of Delayed COE Response, carrying a\n penalty of 1 Blot, to be reported by the Player who posted the\n Claim. A Player who incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim\n commits the Crime of Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime.\n\n'),(496243,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2561, 12 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Claim of Error is a message posted to the Public Forum to the\n effect that a specific post to the Public Forum misrepresents\n the actual Game State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error consists in posting to the Public\n Forum either a denial of the Claim, or an admission of the\n Claim, which shall then include a corrected version of the\n portion of the relevant message which was in error.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response whithin the alloted time\n commits an Infraction carrying a penalty of 1 Blot, to be\n reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who\n incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits a Class 1 Crime.\n\n'),(496242,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2492, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player (hereafter the Claimant) who believes that any\n message posted to the Public Forum makes a claim about the Game\n State which is in error is permitted to, at eir discretion, post\n to the Public Forum alleging that that message contains an\n error. Such an allegation is a Claim of Error, and to be\n legal must also specify the nature of the alleged error.\n\n As soon as possible after a legal Claim of Error is posted, the\n Player who posted the message which contains the alleged error\n (hereafter, the Respondant) shall investigate the allegation of\n error and report to the Public Forum the results of this\n investigation. If the investigation determines that the\n original claim was in error, the Respondant shall retract that\n claim, replacing it with the corrected version. A Player who is\n not on Hold who fails to complete such an investigation within\n seven days when required by this Rule commits a Class C Crime.\n\n The determinations of such an investigation may be challenged by\n a Call for Judgement alleging that the original (or revised)\n claim is in error.\n\n A Player who is determined by CFJ to have posted an erroneous\n claim to the Public Forum commits an Infraction, the penalty for\n which is 1 Blot, to be reported by the Judge of the CFJ. This\n penalty only applies if a legal Claim of Error was made upon the\n erroneous claim, and that Claim of Error was either not\n investigated by the Respondant, or was investigated and found to\n be without merit, and finally if the erroneous claim was not\n retracted prior to the making of the CFJ.\n\n A Claim of Error is not legal and has no effect if:\n\n a) another Claim of Error has previously been made alleging\n the same error;\n b) the message containing the alleged error was posted more\n than 21 days prior to the making of the Claim of Error;\n c) the claim alleged to be in error has already been withdrawn or\n retracted; or\n d) the Player posting the message alleged to contain the error\n is the same as the Player making the Claim of Error.\n\n'),(496241,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2424, 30 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any\n official report or document to contain an error, e shall at eir\n discretion post to the Public Forum a statement that e believes\n the report to be in error, specifying the nature of the error,\n and requesting the Player responsible for the document,\n hereafter called the Respondant, to correct the error. The\n Respondant shall immediately investigate the claim of error,\n and, as soon as possible after the posting of the claim, either\n admit the claim and issue an official correction to the\n document, or deny the claim. Such admission or denial shall be\n posted to the Public Forum.\n\n If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, then\n any Player may, within one week of the posted denial (or the\n expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s\n response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to\n be in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it\n to be in error.\n\n If and only if the Respondant admits the claim, then any Player\n may, within one week of the posted admission (or the expiration\n of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response),\n make a Call for Judgement alleging that the document is not in\n error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be\n in error.\n\n If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call\n for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall\n lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this\n score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this\n Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error\n without a Call for Judgement having been made.\n\n A claim is illegal and may not be made if:\n a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same\n error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the\n time limit to make a CFJ has expired;\n b) the document containing the error was published more than\n 21 days prior to the claim; or\n c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player\n responsible for the document alleged to be in error.\n d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, an \"official report or document\"\n is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is\n required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as\n that Officer (or as Speaker), and an \"error\" is the omission or\n inclusion of any information which causes the official report or\n document to allege that the Game State is in any way different\n than it actually is.\n\n No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document\n contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a\n Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which\n might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from\n being made.\n\n'),(496240,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any\n official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to\n the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in\n error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the\n Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the\n Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall\n immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as\n possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim\n and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the\n claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public\n Forum.\n\n If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, then\n any Player may, within one week of the posted denial (or the\n expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s\n response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to\n be in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it\n to be in error.\n\n If and only if the Respondant admits the claim, then any Player\n may, within one week of the posted admission (or the expiration\n of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response),\n make a Call for Judgement alleging that the document is not in\n error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be\n in error.\n\n If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call\n for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall\n lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this\n score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this\n Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error\n without a Call for Judgement having been made.\n\n A claim is illegal and may not be made if:\n a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same\n error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the\n time limit to make a CFJ has expired;\n b) the document containing the error was published more than\n 21 days prior to the claim; or\n c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player\n responsible for the document alleged to be in error.\n d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, an \"official report or document\"\n is any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is\n required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as\n that Officer (or as Speaker), and an \"error\" is the omission or\n inclusion of any information which causes the official report or\n document to allege that the Game State is in any way different\n than it actually is.\n\n No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document\n contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a\n Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which\n might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from\n being made.\n\n'),(496239,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1643, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any\n official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to\n the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in\n error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the\n Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the\n Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall\n immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as\n possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim\n and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the\n claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public\n Forum.\n\n If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, then\n any Player may, within one week of the posted denial (or the\n expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s\n response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to\n be in error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it\n to be in error.\n\n If and only if the Respondant admits the claim, then any Player\n may, within one week of the posted admission (or the expiration\n of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s response),\n make a Call for Judgement alleging that the document is not in\n error in the way in which the Claim of Error alleged it to be\n in error.\n\n If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call\n for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall\n lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this\n score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this\n Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error\n without a Call for Judgement having been made.\n\n A claim is illegal and may not be made if:\n a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same\n error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the\n time limit to make a CFJ has expired;\n b) the document containing the error was published more than\n 21 days prior to the claim; or\n c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player\n responsible for the document alleged to be in error.\n d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, an \"offical report or document\" is\n any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is\n required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as\n that Officer (or as Speaker), and an \"error\" is the omission or\n inclusion of any information which causes the official report or\n document to allege that the Game State is in any way different\n than it actually is.\n\n No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document\n contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a\n Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which\n might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from\n being made.\n\n'),(496237,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1430 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496238,'zefram',NULL,1431,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1491, 15 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player, hereafter called the Claimant, believes any\n official report or document to contain an error, e shall post to\n the Public Forum a statement that e believes the report to be in\n error, specifying the nature of the error, and requesting the\n Player responsible for the document, hereafter called the\n Respondant, to correct the error. The Respondant shall\n immediately investigate the claim of error, and, as soon as\n possible after the posting of the claim, either admit the claim\n and issue an official correction to the document, or deny the\n claim. Such admission or denial shall be posted to the Public\n Forum.\n\n If and only if the Respondant does not admit the claim, the\n Claimant may, within one week of the posted denial (or the\n expiration of any prescribed time limit for the Respondant\'s\n response), make a Call for Judgement alleging the document to be\n in error.\n\n If the Respondant does not admit the claim and a subsequent Call\n for Judgement finds that the claim is true, the Respondant shall\n lose 5 points. The Claimant is responsible for reporting this\n score change when it occurs. There is no penalty under this\n Rule if the Respondant admits the claim and corrects the error\n without a Call for Judgement having been made.\n\n A claim is illegal and may not be made if:\n a) another claim has previously been made alleging the same\n error, unless this prior claim was not admitted and the\n time limit to make a CFJ has expired;\n b) the document containing the error was published more than\n 21 days prior to the claim; or\n c) the Player making the claim is the same as the Player\n responsible for the document alleged to be in error.\n d) the report in error has been superceded by another report.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, an \"offical report or document\" is\n any report or document which an Officer (or the Speaker) is\n required to maintain by the Rules in the course of eir duties as\n that Officer (or as Speaker), and an \"error\" is the omission or\n inclusion of any information which causes the official report or\n document to allege that the Game State is in any way different\n than it actually is.\n\n No Call for Judgement may be made alleging that a document\n contains errors except as prescribed in this Rule.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might allow a\n Call for Judgement prohibited by this Rule to be made, or which\n might prohibit a Call for Judgement permitted by the Rule from\n being made.\n\n'),(496236,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4828 (Maud), 30 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeeper shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n (a) the type of change;\n (b) if the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to\n that proposal, its proposer, and any coauthors explicitly\n named in that proposal;\n (c) if the rule was changed by some other mechanism, the\n mechanism which specified the change; and\n (d) the date on which the change took effect.\n\n Other rules may require additional information to appear in an\n annotation for certain types of Rule Change.\n\n Annotations to a rule are not part of the rule, and annotating a\n rule is not a rule change. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all\n annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished\n from the text of the rule.\n\n When a rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n'),(496235,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4664 (Sherlock), 9 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the Rule giving the type of\n change, the source of the Change (that is, a reference to the\n Proposal and its Proposer (along with any Players explicitly\n named as co-authors in the Proposal), or Rule or other entity\n which mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the change\n took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to\n appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n'),(496234,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), 26 July 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the Rule giving the type of\n change, the source of the Change (that is, a reference to the\n Proposal and its Proposer, or Rule or other entity which\n mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the change took\n effect. Other Rules may require additional information to\n appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n'),(496233,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), 15 March 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the Rule giving the type of\n change, the source of the Change (that is, a reference to the\n Proposal and the Entity that proposed it, or Rule or other\n entity which mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the\n change took effect. Other Rules may require additional\n information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule\n Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n'),(496232,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), 15 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the Rule giving the type of\n change, the source of the Change (that is, the Number of the\n Proposal and the Entity that proposed it, or Rule-- or other\n entity-- which mandated the Change), and the date upon which the\n change took effect. Other Rules may require additional\n information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule\n Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n'),(496231,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 2738 (Swann), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n attach to the Rule an annotation giving the type of change, the\n source of the Change (that is, the Number of the Proposal and\n the Entity that proposed it, or Rule-- or other entity-- which\n mandated the Change), and the date upon which the change took\n effect. Other Rules may require additional information to\n appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n'),(496230,'zefram',NULL,1430,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1430 by Proposal 1430 (Kelly), 7 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n attach to the Rule an annotation giving the type of change, the\n source of the Change (that is, the Number of the Proposal or\n Rule which contained the Change), and the date upon which the\n change took effect. Other Rules may require additional\n information to appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule\n Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n'),(496228,'zefram',NULL,1416,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1740, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An empty Rule Category may be removed by the Rulekeepor as e\n sees fit.\n\n'),(496229,'zefram',NULL,1427,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1427 by Proposal 1427, 7 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Rule requires that the position of Speaker or Speaker-Elect\n is to be filled during the Arbitration Period for filling the\n position of Speaker, then that requirement is negated; this\n Rule takes precedence over such Rules.\n\n If a Rule requires that the position of Speaker-Elect is\n to be filled during the Arbitration Period for filling the\n position of Speaker-Elect, then that requirement is negated;\n this Rule takes precedence over such Rules.\n\n If a Rule requires that the position of Speaker is to\n be filled during the Arbitration Period for filling the\n position of Speaker-Elect, then the Order of Succession\n procedure for Speaker-Elect is not completed, and the position\n of Speaker is filled according to that Rule. This Rule\n takes precedence over Rules requiring the position of\n Speaker-Elect to be filled by the Order of Succession in\n such a case.\n\n If a Voter becomes Speaker-Elect during a Arbitration Period\n by winning the game, then the Order of Succession procedure\n shall not be completed, and the Speaker-Elect fills the\n position. That is,\n -if the position to be filled is Speaker-Elect, the\n Speaker-Elect remains Speaker-Elect.\n -if the position to be filled is Speaker, the Speaker-Elect\n immediately becomes Speaker and the old Speaker becomes a\n Voter.\n In such a case, this Rule takes precedence over any Rule\n requiring the Order of Succession to be completed.\n\n'),(496225,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Organization shall cease to exist only as specified by its\n Charter or by the Rules.\n\n An Organization shall cease to exist if it would otherwise lack\n a property that Organizations are required to have.\n\n'),(496226,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1397 by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496227,'zefram',NULL,1416,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1416 by Proposal 1416, 1 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An empty Rule Category may be deleted by means of a Directive to\n delete that Category. Such a Directive shall clearly state the\n Category to be deleted. The Proposal containing such a Directive\n must have an Adoption Index of at least 2. If the Proposal\n passes, the Rule Category shall be removed from the Rule Set.\n Non-empty Rule Categories may not be deleted.\n\n'),(496224,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization shall be dissolved only when the Rules or the\n Organization\'s SLC requires it. An Organization shall be\n required to be dissolved whenever any of the following\n conditions is true:\n\n (i) the Jurisdiction of its SLC becomes empty, and there is\n no provision for this to change;\n\n (ii) the continued existence of the Organization would require\n that the Organization not have all of a legal\n Administrator, a legal Executor, and a legal Maintainer\n for its SLC; or\n\n (iii) the SLC of the Organization requires the Organization to\n dissolve.\n\n Requirement to dissolve by condition (iii) is Voluntary. Any\n other requirement to dissolve is Administrative.\n\n The Notary shall detect when an Administrative Dissolution takes\n place.\n\n Each Organization ceases to exist upon its dissolution. Other\n Rules may require an Organization to dissolve under other\n circumstances.\n\n'),(496223,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization shall only be dissolved when the Rules or the\n Organization\'s SLC require it. An Organization shall be\n required to be dissolved whenever any of the following\n conditions are true:\n\n i) The Jurisdiction of its SLC becomes empty, and there is no\n provision for this to change.\n ii) The continued existence of the Organization would require\n that the Organization have no legal Administrator.\n iii) The continued existence of the Organization would require\n that the Organization have no legal Executor.\n iv) The continued existence of the Organization would require\n that the Organization have no legal Maintainer for its SLC.\n v) The SLC of the Organization requires the Organization to\n dissolve. This is a Voluntary Dissolution, all other\n dissolutions are Administrative Dissolutions.\n\n The Notary is required to detect when an Administrative\n Dissolution takes place.\n\n As soon as possible after an Organization dissolves, for any\n reason, the Notary shall report that dissolution to the Public\n Forum.\n\n All Organizations cease to exist upon dissolution. Other Rules\n can require an Organization to dissolve under other\n circumstances.\n\n'),(496222,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2525, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization is required to be dissolved when:\n\n a) its Compact\'s Jurisdiction becomes empty, and there is no way\n for it to cease to be empty;\n b) the continued existence of the Organization would require\n that the Organization have no legal Adminstrator; or\n c) the continued existence of the Organization would require\n that the Organization have no legal Executor, but only if the\n Organization possesses a Treasury.\n\n This Rule does not in any way prevent other Rules from requiring\n an Organization to dissolve under other circumstances.\n\n'),(496221,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2421, 30 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization ceases to exist when any of the following\n conditions become true:\n\n i) Its Compact ceases to have Jurisdiction over any Players\n and no provision exists for the Jurisdiction to expand.\n ii) The continued existence of the Organization would result in\n the absence of a Administrator (and/or the absence of an\n Executor in the case of a Organization with Treasuries)\n with no provision for any Player to fulfill the role(s).\n iii) The Organization is required to dissolve in accordance with\n its Compact or the Rules.\n\n At the moment an Organization dissolves, the following occurs,\n in order.\n\n i) Any Currencies remaining in the Organization\'s Treasuries\n (if such exist) are distributed as provided for by other\n Rules.\n ii) All Players cease to be within the Jurisdiction of the\n Organization\'s Compact.\n iii) The Organization\'s Treasuries, Compact, and the\n Organization itself, cease to exist.\n\n Whenever a Public Organization dissolves, the Notary shall\n report that event to the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after\n e is notified as required by other Rules.\n\n Other Rules may define additional causes of dissolution.\n\n'),(496220,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization ceases to exist when any of the following\n conditions become true:\n\n i) Its Compact ceases to have Jurisdiction over any Players\n and no provision exists for the Jurisdiction to expand.\n ii) The continued existence of the Organization would result in\n the absence of a Administrator (and/or the absence of an\n Executor in the case of a Orginization with Treasuries)\n with no provision for any Player to fulfill the role(s).\n iii) The Organization is required to dissolve in accordance with\n its Compact or the Rules.\n\n At the moment an Organization dissolves, the following occurs,\n in order.\n\n i) Any Currencies remaining in the Organization\'s Treasuries\n (if such exist) are distributed as provided for by other\n Rules.\n ii) All Players cease to be within the Jurisdiction of the\n Organization\'s Compact.\n iii) The Organization\'s Treasuries, Compact, and the\n Organization itself, cease to exist.\n\n Whenever a Public Organization dissolves, the Notary shall\n report that event to the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after\n e is notified as required by other Rules.\n\n Other Rules may define additional causes of dissolution.\n\n'),(496219,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1687, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group shall cease to exist when any of the following\n conditions become true:\n\n (a) The Group has no members;\n (b) The continued existence of the Group would result in the\n Office of Vizier of that Group being vacant; or\n (c) The Group elects to dissolve in accordance with its\n Ordinances.\n\n At the moment a Group dissolves, the following events take\n place:\n\n (1) The Currencies remaining in the Group\'s Treasury are\n divided up as evenly as possible and transferred to those\n Players who were Members of the Group at the moment of its\n dissolution.\n (2) All Coins issued by that Group are destroyed.\n (3) The Group\'s Treasury, and the Group itself, cease to\n exist. All Players who were members of that Group cease\n to be Members.\n\n In the case of a Group which elects to dissolve, the Vizier of\n the dissolving Group shall notify the Registrar of the Group\'s\n dissolution. The Registrar is responsible for detecting when a\n Group dissolves due to a lack of Members or a lack of a Vizier.\n\n Whenever a Group dissolves for any reason, the Registrar shall\n report that event as soon as possible to the Public Forum. The\n Banker is responsible for detecting and reporting all transfers\n required by this Rule.\n\n'),(496218,'zefram',NULL,1397,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1397 by Proposal 1397, 29 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group shall cease to exist when any of the following\n conditions become true:\n\n (a) The Group has no members;\n (b) The continued existence of the Group would result in the\n Office of Vizier of that Group being vacant; or\n (c) The Group elects to dissolve in accordance with its\n Ordinances.\n\n Upon the dissolution of a Group, all remaining Members of the\n Group simultaneously cease to be Members of that Group. Next,\n any Points remaining in the Group\'s Treasury are destroyed, and\n any Currencies remaining in the Group\'s Treasury are transferred\n to the issuing Entity for that Currency (the Bank for Marks, the\n issuing Group for Coins). Finally, all Coins issued by the\n dissolving Group are destroyed.\n\n In the case of a Group which elects to dissolve, the Vizier of\n the dissolving Group shall notify the Registrar of the Group\'s\n dissolution. in all other cases, the Registrar shall be\n responsible to detect and report the Group\'s dissolution.\n\n'),(496217,'zefram',NULL,1378,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4079 (Elysion), 30 October 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Notice of Honor is a public message containing exactly\n one Victim (a Player whose Honor shall be decreased), exactly\n one Beneficiary (a Player whose Honor shall be increased)\n and the reason why each was selected.\n\n Any Player may execute a Notice of Honor provided that\n following conditions hold:\n\n a) E has not already executed two or more Notices of Honor\n during the current Nomic Week.\n b) E is not also the Beneficiary.\n c) E has not already executed a Notice of Honor during\n the current Nomic Week naming the same Victim.\n d) The Victim has an Honor of at least one Kudo.\n\n The effect of a Notice of Honor is to reduce the Honor of\n the Victim by one Kudo and to increase the Honor of the\n Beneficiary by one Kudo.\n\n'),(496216,'zefram',NULL,1378,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2501, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A single Kudo shall be transferred from one Player (the\n \"Victim\") to a second Player (the \"Beneficiary\") when a Player\n (the \"Transferer\") sends a message to the Herald indicating that\n e is transferring a Kudo from the Victim to the Beneficiary, and\n all the following conditions hold:\n\n a) the Transferer has not, during the current Nomic Week,\n previously caused two or more Kudo transfers;\n b) the Transferer is not the same Player as the Beneficiary;\n c) The Transferer has not, during the current Nomic Week,\n previously transferred a Kudo away from the Victim or to the\n Beneficiary;\n d) the Victim has at least one Kudo; and\n e) the message contains a justification for the transfer.\n\n This Rule does not in any way prohibit other Rules from causing\n changes to a Player\'s Honour.\n\n'),(496213,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of marks of honour and shame relating to Agora.\n\n'),(496214,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1377 by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496215,'zefram',NULL,1378,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1628, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In each Nomic Week, each Player not On Hold (the Transferring\n Player) is permitted to transfer a maximum of two Kudos from\n Players of eir choice to other Players of eir choice, subject to\n these restrictions: 1) The Transferring Player is not permitted\n to transfer more than one Kudo from any Player, and is not\n permitted to transfer more than one Kudo to any Player, within\n the Week. 2) The Transferring Player is not permitted to\n transfer Kudos to emself. A Kudo transfer occurs when a Player\n sends to the Herald a legitimate Kudo transfer request,\n including a reason for the transfer.\n\n Other Rules are permitted to provide for other types of Kudo\n changes.\n\n'),(496212,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of the History of Agora and its players.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n b) A list of one or more Threats, including Bears.\n\n'),(496211,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of the History of Agora and its players.\n\n The Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (ii) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (iii) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (iv) the current Officers and their dates of service.\n\n'),(496210,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\n (iv) Each player\'s Education.\n\n'),(496209,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\n'),(496207,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of\n Indulgences and is responsible for keeping track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\n'),(496208,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\n'),(496206,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Herald is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of\n Indulgences and is responsible for keeping track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player\n and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\n'),(496205,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), 28 March 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Herald, whose responsibility it is to\n keep track of Blots and to be the Recordkeepor of Indulgences.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player\n and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\n'),(496204,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Herald, whose responsibility it is to\n keep track of Honour, and to be the Recordkeepor of Indulgences.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Honour of each entity that has been a Player within\n the last three months, and the changes thereto since\n the last posting of the Report.\n\n (ii) The reason for each such change. In the case of a\n Player-initiated change, this includes any justification\n provided by the Player.\n\n (iii) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player\n and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (iv) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that has been awarded and not subsequently revoked, and\n to whom it has been awarded.\n\n (v) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons possess them.\n\n'),(496203,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), 10 October 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Herald, whose responsibility it is to\n keep track of Honour, and to be the Recordkeepor of Indulgences.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the following:\n\n i) The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any\n time within the last three months, and the changes thereof\n since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n\n ii) The reason for each such change. In the case of a\n Player-initiated change, this includes any justification\n provided by the Player.\n\n iii) The Currency Records for Indulgences.\n\n iv) The number of Blots staining each Player and Fugitive\n from Justice.\n\n'),(496202,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is an Office of Herald.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the following:\n\n - The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any\n time within the last three months, and the changes thereof\n since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n\n - The reason for each such change; in the case of a\n Player-initiated change this includes any justification\n provided by the Player.\n\n - The Currency Records for Indulgences.\n\n - A list of all Fugitives from Justice, and the number of\n Fugitive Blots attributed to each such Fugitive.\n\n The Herald shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s\n budget.\n\n'),(496201,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is an Office of Herald.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the following:\n\n - The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any\n time within the last three months, and the changes thereof\n since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n\n - The reason for each such change; in the case of a\n Player-initiated change this includes any justification\n provided by the Player.\n\n - The Currency Records for Indulgences.\n\n - A list of all Fugitives from Justice, and the number of\n Fugitive Blots attributed to each such Fugitive.\n\n The Herald shall receive a salary equal to 2 times\n the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n'),(496200,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is an Office of Herald.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the following:\n\n - The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any\n time within the last three months, and the changes thereof\n since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n\n - The reason for each such change; in the case of a\n Player-initiated change this includes any justification\n provided by the Player.\n\n - The Currency Records for Indulgences.\n\n - A list of all Fugitives from Justice, and the number of\n Fugitive Blots attributed to each such Fugitive.\n\n The Herald shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times\n the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n'),(496199,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is an Office of Herald.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the following:\n\n - The Honour of every Entity that has been a Player at any\n time within the last three months, and the changes thereof\n since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n\n - The reason for each such change; in the case of a\n Player-initiated change this includes any justification\n provided by the Player.\n\n - The number of Indulgences held in each Treasury, the changes\n thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report, and\n the reason for each such change.\n\n - For every former Player who left the game after the creation\n of this Rule, their Indulgences at the time they last left the\n game, just before the emptying and destruction of eir Treasury\n (if any).\n\n The Herald shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times\n the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n'),(496198,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), 11 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is an Office of Herald.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the Honour of every Entity that has\n been a Player at any time within the last three months, and the\n changes thereof since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n For each such change the Report includes the reason for each\n change; in the case of a Player-initiated change this includes\n any justification provided by the Player.\n\n'),(496197,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2503, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of \"Herald\".\n\n The Herald shall maintain a record of the Honour of every\n Player and of every non-Player who has been a Player during the\n past three months.\n\n The Herald shall, once each Week, post a Report to the Public\n Forum; this Report shall report on the Honour of every entity\n for which the Herald is required to maintain records, and all\n changes to the above since the last such Report. The report of\n changes shall include the reason for each change; this shall\n include (but not be limited to) any justification provided by a\n Player as part of a Player-caused Kudo transfer.\n\n'),(496196,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 29 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called the Herald, who is responsible\n for keeping track of the Kudos of all Players, as well as any\n ex-Players who have been Players within the past three months.\n\n The Herald shall post to the Public Forum once per Week, a\n current Kudo report. This report shall list the Kudos held by\n each holding Entity. For any Entity whose Kudos have changed\n since the previous report, the Herald must include the reasons\n for the Kudo change, including, if applicable, the reasons\n provided by a Player requesting a Kudo transfer, as provided by\n other Rules.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496195,'zefram',NULL,1377,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1377 by Proposal 1377, 17 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called the Herald, who is responsible\n for keeping track of the Kudos of all Players, as well as any\n ex-Players who have been Players within the past three months.\n\n The Herald shall post to the Public Forum once per Week, a\n current Kudo report. This report shall list the Kudos held by\n each holding Entity. For any Entity whose Kudos have changed\n since the previous report, the Herald must include the reasons\n for the Kudo change, including, if applicable, the reasons\n provided by a Player requesting a Kudo transfer, as provided by\n other Rules.\n\n'),(496192,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Speaker who goes On Hold while e is still Speaker commits the\n Class 10 Crime of Speaker Inactivity.\n\n If the Speaker is On Hold, a Speaker Transition occurs.\n\n'),(496193,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Speaker who ceases to be active while e is still Speaker\n commits the class 10 crime of Speaker Inactivity.\n\n Whenever the Speaker is not active, a Speaker Transition occurs.\n\n'),(496194,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1375 by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496189,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker is On Hold, then the Player who holds the Office\n of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n A Speaker who goes on Hold while e is still Speaker commits a\n Class B Crime.\n\n'),(496190,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(5) Cosmetically by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker is On Hold, then the Player who holds the Office\n of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n A Speaker who goes on Hold while e is still Speaker commits the\n Crime of Speaker Inactivity, a Class B Crime.\n\n'),(496191,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), 9 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Speaker who goes On Hold while e is still Speaker commits the\n Crime of Speaker Inactivity, a Class B Crime.\n\n If the Speaker is On Hold, a Speaker Transition occurs.\n\n'),(496188,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker is On Hold, a new Speaker shall be chosen\n according to the Order of Succession. The Arbiter of\n Succession shall be the Registrar; unless the Speaker is also\n the Registrar, in which case the Arbiter of Succession is the\n first Voter to post a message to the Public Forum stating that e\n is willing to act as Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records,\n etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker\n who goes on Hold while e is still Speaker commits a Class B\n Crime.\n\n'),(496187,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker is On Hold, a new Speaker shall be chosen\n according to the Order of Succession. The Arbiter of\n Succession shall be the Registrar; unless the Office of\n Registrar is vacant, or the Speaker is also the Registrar,\n in which case the Arbiter of Succession is the first Voter\n to post a message to the Public Forum stating that e is\n willing to act as Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records,\n etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker\n who goes on Hold while e is still Speaker commits a Class B\n Crime.\n\n'),(496184,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1370 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496185,'zefram',NULL,1371,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1371 by Proposal 1371, 5 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Degree of higher rank than Bachelor of Nomic may be obtained\n based on the Approval of any texts authored prior to the passage\n of this Rule. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which\n would allow such a Degree to be awarded.\n\n'),(496186,'zefram',NULL,1375,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1428, 5 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker is On Hold, a new Speaker shall be chosen\n according to the Order of Succession. The Arbiter of\n Succession shall be the Registrar; unless the Office of\n Registrar is vacant, or the Speaker is also the Registrar,\n in which case the Arbiter of Succession is the first Voter\n to post a message to the Public Forum stating that e is\n willing to act as Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records,\n etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. If a Speaker\n is replaced in this manner, e has eir score set to minus 2N\n Points upon becoming a Voter, where N is the number of points\n required for that player to win at the moment e becomes a Voter.\n\n'),(496183,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis along with a statement explicitly indicating that the\n Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a\n particular degree. A Thesis (plural: Theses) is an essay whose\n topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general.\n\n The Candidate shall choose a Player other than emself to be the\n first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the\n Chair\'s consent.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the Speaker\n shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the Candidate to\n be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the Clerk of the Courts\n shall so appoint. The two Committee members shall then select,\n by mutual consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be\n the third Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Chair of the\n Thesis Committee may award that Degree to the Candidate if and\n only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the Rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n Thesis is worthy of the Degree to be granted. Attention\n should be paid to the originality and strength of the work, as\n well as the extent of the work with regard to the expectations\n of the particular degree. The committee may award a lesser\n degree if appropriate; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may publish a Commentary for the Thesis.\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis that has\n resulted in a degree, along with all such Commentaries.\n\n'),(496182,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis along with a statement explicitly indicating that the\n Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a\n particular degree. A Thesis (plural: Theses) is an essay whose\n topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general.\n\n The Candidate shall choose a Player other tham emself to be the\n first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the\n Chair\'s consent.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the\n Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the\n Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the the\n Clerk of the Courts shall so appoint. The two Committee members\n shall then select, by mutual consent, a third person who is not\n the Candidate to be the third Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Chair of the\n Thesis Committee may award that Degree to the Candidate if and\n only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the Rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n Thesis is worthy of the Degree to be granted. Attention\n should be paid to the originality and strength of the work, as\n well as the extent of the work with regard to the expectations\n of the particular degree. The committee may award a lesser\n degree if appropriate; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may publish a Commentary for the Thesis.\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis that has\n resulted in a degree, along with all such Commentaries.\n\n'),(496181,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis Draft, authored by emself, along with a statement\n explicitly indicating that the Thesis Draft is being submitted\n with the intent to qualify for a particular degree.\n\n If the Candidate is a Player, e may choose another Player to be\n the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with\n the Chair\'s consent. For non-players, or if no other Player\n consents to be the Chair within one month of draft submission,\n the Speaker will serve as Chair.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the\n Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the\n Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the\n Justiciar shall so appoint, unless the Chair or the Candidate is\n the Justiciar, in which case the Clerk of the Courts shall so\n appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual\n consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third\n Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Candidate may\n publish a new Thesis Draft at any time, in response to Committee\n requests or of eir own choosing, by indicating it is a new Thesis\n Draft for the same Degree.\n\n If the Committee is dissolved without granting a degree, the\n Committee ceases to be a Committee, and the Candidate ceases to\n be a Candidate, and any existent Thesis Draft must be republished\n and subject to a new Committee selection to be eligible for a\n Degree.\n\n The Chair of a Thesis Committee may dissolve the Committee\n without granting a degree, with the consent of at least one other\n Committee member. To so dissolve, the Chair must publish a\n notice of intent to dissolve at least 14 days before dissolving.\n The Candidate may so dissolve the Committee at any time by public\n announcement.\n\n The Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may\n award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n most recent Thesis draft produced by the Candidate is worthy\n of the Degree to be granted; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may have up to 14 days after a Degree is\n awarded to publish a Commentary for the Thesis. After that\n time, the Chair shall publish the most recent Thesis Draft along\n with all Commentary so published. This combined publication\n shall become the Final Thesis. Upon publication of this Final\n Thesis the Committee members cease to be Committee members for\n that Thesis.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Final Thesis.\n\n'),(496180,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis Draft, authored by emself, along with a statement\n explicitly indicating that the Thesis Draft is being submitted\n with the intent to qualify for a particular degree.\n\n If the Candidate is a Player, e may choose another Player to be\n the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with\n the Chair\'s consent. For non-players, or if no other Player\n consents to be the Chair within one month of draft submission,\n the Speaker will serve as Chair.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the\n Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the\n Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the\n Justiciar shall so appoint, unless the Chair or the Candidate is\n the Justiciar, in which case the Clerk of the Courts shall so\n appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual\n consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third\n Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Candidate may\n publish a new Thesis Draft at any time, in response to Committee\n requests or of eir own choosing, by indicating it is a new Thesis\n Draft for the same Degree.\n\n If the Committee is dissolved without granting a degree, the\n Committee ceases to be a Committee, and the Candidate ceases to\n be a Candidate, and any existant Thesis Draft must be republished\n and subject to a new Committee selection to be eligible for a\n Degree.\n\n The Chair of a Thesis Committee may dissolve the Committee\n without granting a degree, with the consent of at least one other\n Committee member. To so dissolve, the Chair must publish a\n notice of intent to dissolve at least 14 days before dissolving.\n The Candidate may so dissolve the Committee at any time by public\n announcement.\n\n The Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may\n award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n most recent Thesis draft produced by the Candidate is worthy\n of the Degree to be granted; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may have up to 14 days after a Degree is\n awarded to publish a Commentary for the Thesis. After that\n time, the Chair shall publish the most recent Thesis Draft along\n with all Commentary so published. This combined publication\n shall become the Final Thesis. Upon publication of this Final\n Thesis the Committee members cease to be Committee members for\n that Thesis.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Final Thesis.\n\n'),(496179,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4303 (OscarMeyr), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis, authored by emself, along with a statement explicitly\n indicating that the Thesis is being submitted with the intent to\n qualify for a particular Degree.\n\n If the Candidate is a Player, e may choose the first member of\n eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair; for non-players, the\n Speaker will serve as Chair. The Chair\'s Opposite is defined as\n the Player who most often voted in the opposite manner of the\n Chair in the last quarter; the Opposite becomes the second\n committee member. The Chair and eir Opposite will select, as\n soon as possible, and by mutual agreement, the third member of\n the committee.\n\n The Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may\n grant that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n Thesis produced by the Candidate is worthy of the Degree to be\n granted; and\n\n * fewer than seven years have passed since the time the Thesis\n Committee was formed.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis approved by\n its Thesis Committee.\n\n The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives\n a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 500 words. A Candidate who already holds an BN Degree receives\n a credit of 250 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History requires a Thesis of at\n least 750 words and containing a narrative covering significant\n events which have occurred in Agora within the eight weeks prior\n to the publication of the Thesis.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 750\n words.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy requires a Thesis of at\n least 1000 words, and that the candidate has also published an\n additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme\n is related to Agora or Nomic in general.\n\n'),(496178,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of\n sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its\n recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is\n determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions\n established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the\n named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be\n Granted.\n\n No Degree may be Granted to any recipient unless the recipient\n has published a Thesis authored by emself, along with a\n statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is being\n submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The\n Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this\n manner.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 1.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events\n which have occurred in Agora within at least the last eight\n weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power\n of at least 2.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 2.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also published an\n additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme\n is related to Agora or Nomic in general, and unless the\n instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 3.\n\n'),(496177,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), 15 January 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of\n sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its\n recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is\n determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions\n established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the\n named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be\n Granted.\n\n No Degree may be Granted to any recipient unless the recipient\n has posted a Thesis to the Public Forum authored by emself,\n along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is\n being submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The\n Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this\n manner.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 1.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events\n which have occurred in Agora within at least the last eight\n weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power\n of at least 2.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 2.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also posted in the\n Public Forum an additional creative work authored by emself\n whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 3.\n\n'),(496176,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 12 September 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of\n sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its\n recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is\n determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions\n established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the\n named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be\n Granted.\n\n No Degree may be Granted to any recipient unless the recipient\n has posted a Thesis to the Public Forum authored by eirself,\n along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is\n being submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The\n Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this\n manner.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 1.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events\n which have occured in Agora within at least the last eight\n weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power\n of at least 2.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 2.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also posted in the\n Public Forum an additional creative work authored by emself\n whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 3.\n\n'),(496175,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of\n sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its\n recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is\n determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions\n established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the\n named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be\n Granted.\n\n No Degree may be Granted to any recipient unless the recipient\n has posted a Thesis to the Public Forum authored by eirself,\n along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is\n being submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The\n Archivist shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this\n manner.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 1.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events\n which have occured in Agora within at least the last eight\n weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power\n of at least 2.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 2.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also posted in the\n Public Forum an additional creative work authored by emself\n whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 3.\n\n'),(496174,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Degree is awarded by the operation of an instrument of\n sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be awarded, and its\n recipient. The sufficient Power required to award a Degree is\n determined by the Degree to be awarded. All conditions\n established by this and other Rules for the awarding of the\n named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be\n awarded.\n\n No Degree may be awarded to any recipient unless the recipient\n has posted a Thesis to the Public Forum authored by eirself,\n along with a statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is\n being submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The\n Archivist shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this\n manner.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be awarded unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument awarding the Degree has Power of at\n least 1.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be awarded\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events\n which have occured in Agora within at least the last eight\n weeks, and unless the instrument awarding the Degree has Power\n of at least 2.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be awarded unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument awarding the Degree has Power of at\n least 2.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be awarded\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also posted in the\n Public Forum an additional creative work authored by emself\n whose topic or theme is related to Agora or Nomic in general,\n and unless the instrument awarding the Degree has Power of at\n least 3.\n\n'),(496173,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2715, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.\n\n A Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended\n recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and\n include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree.\n A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions\n specified in this Rule are met.\n\n The following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a\n Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X):\n - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying\n Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree.\n - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to\n Person X.\n - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a\n Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly\n associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a\n Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a\n copy of each Thesis written in this manner.\n - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the\n Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)\n\n The following are additional requirements for the awarding of\n individual Degrees.\n\n To receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic:\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic History:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must contain\n a narrative covering significant events which have occurred\n at some prior point in Agora history.\n\n To receive the Degree Master of Nomic:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 3.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Proposal to Request a Degree must clearly identify a\n creative work, which has been published in the Public Forum,\n and whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or\n Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.\n\n'),(496172,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2682, 26 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.\n\n A Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended\n recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and\n include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree.\n A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions\n specified in this Rule are met.\n\n The following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a\n Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X):\n - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying\n Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree.\n - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to\n Person X.\n - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a\n Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly\n associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a\n Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a\n copy of each Thesis written in this manner.\n - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the\n Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)\n\n The following are additional requirements for the awarding of\n individual Degrees.\n\n To receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic:\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic History:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must contain\n a narrative covering significant events which have occurred\n in Agora within at least the last eight weeks.\n\n To receive the Degree Master of Nomic:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 3.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Proposal to Request a Degree must clearly identify a\n creative work, which has been published in the Public Forum,\n and whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or\n Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.\n\n'),(496171,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2487, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.\n\n A Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended\n recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and\n include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree.\n A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions\n specified in this Rule are met.\n\n The following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a\n Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X):\n - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying\n Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree.\n - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to\n Person X.\n - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a\n Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly\n associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a\n Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a\n copy of each Thesis written in this manner.\n - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the\n Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)\n\n The following are additional requirements for the awarding of\n individual Degrees.\n\n To receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic:\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Master of Nomic:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 3.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Proposal to Request a Degree must clearly identify a\n creative work, which has been published in the Public Forum,\n and whose topic or theme is any concept related to Agora or\n Nomic in general. The author of this work must be Person X.\n\n'),(496170,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2399, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.\n\n A Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended\n recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and\n include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree.\n A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions\n specified in this Rule are met.\n\n The following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a\n Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X):\n - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying\n Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree.\n - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to\n Person X.\n - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a\n Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly\n associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a\n Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a\n copy of each Thesis written in this manner.\n - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the\n Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)\n\n The following are additional requirements for the awarding of\n individual Degrees.\n\n To receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic:\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Master of Nomic:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy:\n - The minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to\n take effect is 3.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Proposal to Request a Degree must also contain a\n creative work whose topic or theme is any concept related to\n Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be\n Person X.\n\n'),(496169,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.\n\n A Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended\n recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and\n include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree.\n A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions\n specified in this Rule are met.\n\n The following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a\n Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X):\n - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying\n Person X as the intended recipient of the Degree.\n - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to\n Person X.\n - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a\n Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly\n associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a\n Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a\n copy of each Thesis written in this manner.\n - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the\n Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)\n\n The following are additional requirements for the awarding of\n individual Degrees.\n\n To receive the Degree Associate of Nomic:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must\n be at least 1.\n\n To receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be\n at least 1.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Master of Nomic:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be\n at least 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be\n at least 3.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Proposal to Request a Degree must also contain a\n creative work whose topic or theme is any concept related to\n Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be\n Person X.\n\n'),(496166,'zefram',NULL,1369,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), 15 January 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Thesis (plural: Theses) shall be an essay whose topic is any\n facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general. The topic should be\n substantially different from all other Theses previously\n approved, but this is not a requirement.\n\n'),(496167,'zefram',NULL,1369,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1369 by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496168,'zefram',NULL,1370,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1508, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a legal Directive to Request a Degree.\n\n A Directive to Request a Degree must specify the intended\n recipient of the Degree and the Degree being Requested and\n include any texts necessary to the awarding of that Degree.\n A person shall receive a Degree if and only if the conditions\n specified in this Rule are met.\n\n The following conditions are a prerequisite to the awarding of a\n Degree to a person (referred to here as Person X):\n - A Proposal to Request a Degree is submitted specifying\n Person X as the intended receipient of the Degree.\n - Only the Degree specified in the Proposal may be awarded to\n Person X.\n - Person X sends a message to the Public Forum containing a\n Thesis authored by Person X and a statement explicitly\n associating the Thesis with the Proposal to Request a\n Degree. The Archivist shall be responsible for keeping a\n copy of each Thesis written in this manner.\n - Person X does not decline the Degree. (To decline the\n Degree, e states such in a message to the Public Forum.)\n\n The following are additional requirements for the awarding of\n individual Degrees.\n\n To receive the Degree Associate of Nomic:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must\n be at least 1.\n\n To receive the Degree Bachelor of Nomic:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be\n at least 1.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Master of Nomic:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be\n at least 2.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n\n To receive the Degree Doctor of Nomic Philosophy:\n - The Voting Index of the Proposal to Request a Degree must be\n at least 3.\n - The Thesis in the Proposal to Request a Degree must be at\n least 500 words.\n - The Proposal to Request a Degree must also contain a\n creative work whose topic or theme is any concept related to\n Agora or Nomic in general. The author of this work must be\n Person X.\n\n'),(496163,'zefram',NULL,1368,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1368 by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496164,'zefram',NULL,1369,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1369 by Proposal 1369, 5 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a Nomic Entity known as a Thesis, plural Theses.\n\n A Thesis shall be an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora\n Nomic, or Nomic in general. The topic should be substantially\n different from all other Theses previously approved, but this\n is not a requirement.\n\n'),(496165,'zefram',NULL,1369,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), 26 July 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Thesis (plura: Theses) shall be an essay whose topic is any\n facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general. The topic should be\n substantially different from all other Theses previously\n approved, but this is not a requirement.\n\n'),(496162,'zefram',NULL,1368,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following Degrees are hereby made legal:\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)\n\n Degrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule,\n with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher than\n Degrees listed earlier. The abbreviations in parentheses are not\n part of the actual Degree.\n\n'),(496160,'zefram',NULL,1368,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1368 by Proposal 1368, 5 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following Degrees are hereby made legal:\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)\n\n Degrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule,\n with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher than\n Degrees listed earlier. The abbreviations in parenthesis are not\n part of the actual Degree.\n\n'),(496161,'zefram',NULL,1368,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2682, 26 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following Degrees are hereby made legal:\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)\n\n Degrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule,\n with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher than\n Degrees listed earlier. The abbreviations in parenthesis are not\n part of the actual Degree.\n\n'),(496159,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\n'),(496158,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. The awarding of a degree is a\n secured change\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\n'),(496157,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the\n action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n power of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\n'),(496156,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the\n action of an instrumennt with power greater than or equal to the\n power of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\n'),(496154,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), 13 February 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with eir name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if e\n currently Bears that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to Bear Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person Bears a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n \"Granting a Degree\" and \"awarding a Degree\" are synonymous. A\n Player who has been awarded a Degree Bears that Degree.\n\n'),(496155,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such\n by a Rule. Persons may come to Bear Degrees only as specified\n in the Rules. Once a person Bears a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n The following Degrees are hereby made legal:\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N. Sci)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)\n\n Degrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule,\n with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher.\n\n'),(496153,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with eir name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if e\n currently possesses that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n \"Granting a Degree\" and \"awarding a Degree\" are synonymous. A\n Player who has been awarded a Degree possesses that Degree.\n\n'),(496151,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with their name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if that\n person currently possesses that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n The Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess\n which Degrees.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n \"Granting a Degree\" and \"awarding a Degree\" are synonymous. A\n Player who has been awarded a Degree possesses that Degree.\n\n'),(496152,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), 9 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with eir name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if e\n currently possesses that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n The Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess\n which Degrees.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n \"Granting a Degree\" and \"awarding a Degree\" are synonymous. A\n Player who has been awarded a Degree possesses that Degree.\n\n'),(496149,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 12 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with their name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if that\n person currently possesses that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n The Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess\n which Degrees.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496150,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with their name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if that\n person currently possesses that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n The Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess\n which Degrees.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n'),(496146,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5025 (BobTHJ), 25 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player may submit a Concurring or Dissenting opinion for a\n given CFJ trial or appeals decision with 1 Support. The opinion\n must reference the CFJ in question and clearly indicate that it\n is an opinion to be appended to that CFJ. The opinion should be\n accompanied by reasons or arguments. The Clerk of the Courts\n shall append any properly submitted opinion to the CFJ in\n question, along with a list of the Player who submitted that\n opinion and the player(s) who supported it.\n\n'),(496147,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1365 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496148,'zefram',NULL,1367,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1367 by Proposal 1367, 5 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with their name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if that\n person currently possesses that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to possess Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person possesses a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n The Registrar shall note in eir report which persons possess\n which Degrees.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n'),(496144,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Two or more players may submit a Concurring or Dissenting\n Opinion for a given CFJ trial or appeals decision, via a single\n application to the Clerk of the Courts signed by all submittors.\n\n The opinion must include reference to the CFJ and the particular\n judgement or appeals decision to which it applies and be\n accompanied by reasons or arugments for the opinion.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish any properly submitted\n Opinion and append it to the text of the legal judgement.\n\n'),(496145,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Two or more players may submit a Concurring or Dissenting\n Opinion for a given CFJ trial or appeals decision, via a single\n application to the Clerk of the Courts signed by all submitters.\n\n The opinion must include reference to the CFJ and the particular\n judgement or appeals decision to which it applies and be\n accompanied by reasons or arguments for the opinion.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish any properly submitted\n Opinion and append it to the text of the legal judgement.\n\n'),(496143,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a type of Application called an Application to\n Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has the\n effect of annotating a Judgement in a given Call for Judgement.\n In order for such an Application to have effect upon submission,\n it must satisfy the following requirements:\n\n * It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies.\n * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or\n a Dissenting Opinion.\n * It must indicate whether the Judgement to which it applies is\n that of the Judge or that of the Appeals Court.\n * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations\n of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom.\n * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players.\n * It must be submitted no earlier than the submission of the\n Judgement to which it applies, and no later than one week\n after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of that\n Judgement.\n\n An Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted by submitting\n it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been\n submitted and having met all the requirements for effectiveness,\n is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a\n Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the\n Opinion.\n\n Once an Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted and takes\n effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to\n all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must\n be appended to the Legal Judgement.\n\n'),(496142,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a type of Application called an Application\n to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has\n the effect of annotating a Judgement or Dismissal in a given\n Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have\n effect upon submission, it must satisfy the following\n requirements:\n\n * It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies.\n * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or\n a Dissenting Opinion.\n * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to\n which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the\n Appeals Court.\n * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations\n of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom.\n * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players.\n * It must be submitted no earlier than the submission of the\n Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than\n one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of\n that Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n An Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted by submitting\n it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having\n been submitted and having met all the requirements for\n effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred\n to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as\n indicated in the Opinion.\n\n Once an Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted and takes\n effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to\n all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must\n be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n'),(496141,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(6) Cosmetically by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a type of Application called an Application\n to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has\n the effect of annotating a Judgement or Dismissal in a given\n Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have\n effect upon Execution, it must satisfy the following\n requirements:\n\n * It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies.\n * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or\n a Dissenting Opinion.\n * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to\n which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the\n Appeals Court.\n * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations\n of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom.\n * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players.\n * It must be Executed no earlier than the submission of the\n Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than\n one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of\n that Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n An Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed by submitting\n it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having\n been Executed and having met all the requirements for\n effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred\n to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as\n indicated in the Opinion.\n\n Once an Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed and takes\n effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to\n all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must\n be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n'),(496140,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 2750 (Chuck), 18 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a type of Application called an Application\n to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has\n the effect of annotating a Judgement or Dismissal in a given\n Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have\n effect upon Execution, it must satisfy the following\n requirements:\n\n * It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies.\n * It must be labelled as either a Concurring Opinion or\n a Dissenting Opinion.\n * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to\n which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the\n Appeals Court.\n * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations\n of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom.\n * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players.\n * It must be Executed no earlier than the submission of the\n Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than\n one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of\n that Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n An Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed by submitting\n it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having\n been Executed and having met all the requirements for\n effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred\n to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as\n indicated in the Opinion.\n\n Once an Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed and takes\n effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to\n all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must\n be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n'),(496139,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 4 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic\n community, a Concurring or a Dissenting Opinion may be filed in\n written format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or\n Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:\n\n (i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments,\n which include, but are not necessarily limited to,\n citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora\n Conventions.\n\n (ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active\n Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the\n opinion.\n\n (iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the\n Courts within 1 Nomic Week.\n\n (iv) The opinion must be entitled Concurring or\n Dissenting with the Judgement.\n\n Once an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the\n Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon\n as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting\n Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring\n or Dissenting Opinions.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496138,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic\n community, a Concurring or a Dissenting Opinion may be filed in\n written format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or\n Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:\n\n (i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments,\n which include, but are not necessarily limited to,\n citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora\n Conventions.\n\n (ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active\n Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the\n opinion.\n\n (iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the\n Courts within 1 Nomic Week.\n\n (iv) The opinion must be entitled Concurring or\n Dissenting with the Judgement.\n\n Once an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the\n Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon\n as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting\n Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring\n or Dissenting Opinions.\n\n'),(496137,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic\n community, a Concurring or a Disenting Opinion may be filed in\n writen format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or\n Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:\n\n (i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments,\n which include, but are not necessarily limited to,\n citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora\n Conventions.\n\n (ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active\n Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the\n opinion.\n\n (iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the\n Courts within 1 Nomic Week.\n\n (iv) The opinion must be entitled Concurring or\n Dissenting with the Judgement.\n\n Once an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the\n Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon\n as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting\n Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring\n or Dissenting Opinions.\n\n'),(496136,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1644, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic\n community, a Concurring or a Disenting Opinion may be filed in\n writen format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or\n Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:\n\n (i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments,\n which include, but are not necessarily limited to,\n citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora\n Conventions*.\n\n (ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active\n Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the\n opinion.\n\n (iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the\n Courts within 1 Nomic Week.\n\n (iv) The opinion must be title as Concurring or\n Dissenting with the Judgement.\n\n Once an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the\n Courts must distribute the opinion to all Players as soon\n as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting\n Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring\n or Dissenting Opinions.\n\n'),(496133,'zefram',NULL,1349,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1349 by Proposal 1349, 29 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rulekeepor shall give each newly-enacted Rule a Number for\n reference when it is created. The Number of a Rule shall be the\n least integer greater than all other Numbers previously given to\n a Rule (including numbers assigned to Rules later determined to\n have been incorrectly enacted), or 301, whichever is greater.\n\n Once a Rule has been given a Rule Number, it shall not be\n changed except as specified in the Rules.\n\n'),(496134,'zefram',NULL,1349,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1349 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496135,'zefram',NULL,1365,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1365 by Proposal 1365, 5 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon the distribution of a legal judgement to the Nomic\n community, a Concurring or a Disenting Opinion may be filed in\n writen format with the Clerk of the Courts. The Concurring or\n Dissenting Opinion must satisfy the following criteria:\n\n (i) The opinion must be accompanied by reasons and arguments,\n which include, but are not necessarily limited to,\n citations of deciding Rules, past Judgement, and Agora\n Conventions*.\n\n (ii) The opinion must be sponsored by at least two active\n Agora players and the sponsors must be listed on the\n opinion.\n\n (iii) The opinion must be filed with the Clerk of the\n Courts within 1 Nomic Week.\n\n (iv) The opinion must be title as Concurring or\n Dissenting with the Judgement.\n\n Once an opinion satisfies these components, the Clerk of the\n Courts must distribute the opinion to the to all Players as soon\n as possible. Furthermore, all Concurring and Dissenting\n Opinions must be appended to the Legal Judgement as Concurring\n or Dissenting Opinions.\n\n'),(496131,'zefram',NULL,1339,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule\n Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a\n Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect.\n\n Variations in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of\n text in an existing Rule to be removed or replaced does not\n create an irregularity or ambiguity, for the purpose of this\n Rule. Any other variation, however, does.\n\n'),(496132,'zefram',NULL,1339,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 1339 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496130,'zefram',NULL,1339,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a\n Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as\n the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating,\n Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as\n defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the\n passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same\n effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules\n permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result\n of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the\n result of the effect or action of a Rule.\n\n All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following\n constraints:\n\n An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.\n\n Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly and\n unambiguously identify the Rule to be affected.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability\n Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If\n the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not\n specified, it shall be 1.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule\n must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability\n Index.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly\n and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If\n the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new\n text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual\n text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and\n capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would\n permit such differences, even if the differences would be\n considered inconsequential by such Rules.\n\n Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not\n have any legal force.\n\n'),(496129,'zefram',NULL,1339,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2671, 26 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a\n Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as\n the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating,\n Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as\n defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the\n passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same\n effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules\n permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result\n of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the\n result of the effect or action of a Rule.\n\n All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following\n constraints:\n\n An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.\n\n Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly and\n unambiguously identify the Rule to be affected.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability\n Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If\n the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not\n specified, it shall be 1.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the\n Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that\n Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no\n Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to\n an appropriate category of eir own choice.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule\n must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability\n Index.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly\n and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If\n the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new\n text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual\n text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and\n capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would\n permit such differences, even if the differences would be\n considered inconsequential by such Rules.\n\n Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not\n have any legal force.\n\n'),(496128,'zefram',NULL,1339,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a\n Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as\n the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating,\n Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as\n defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the\n passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same\n effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules\n permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result\n of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the\n result of the effect or action of a Rule.\n\n All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following\n constraints:\n\n An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.\n\n Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly\n identify the Number of the Rule to be affected.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability\n Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If\n the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not\n specified, it shall be 1.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the\n Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that\n Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no\n Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to\n an appropriate category of eir own choice.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule\n must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability\n Index.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly\n and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If\n the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new\n text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual\n text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and\n capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would\n permit such differences, even if the differences would be\n considered inconsequential by such Rules.\n\n Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not\n have any legal force.\n\n'),(496127,'zefram',NULL,1339,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1440, 21 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a\n Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as\n the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating,\n Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as\n defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the\n passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same\n effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules\n permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result\n of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the\n result of the effect or action of a Rule.\n\n All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following\n constraints:\n\n An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.\n\n Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly\n identify the Number of the Rule to be affected.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability\n Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If\n the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not\n specified, it shall be 1.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the\n Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that\n Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no\n Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to\n an appropriate category of eir own choice.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule\n must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability\n Index.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly and\n unambigiously specify the changes which are to be made. If the\n Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new\n text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual\n text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and\n capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would\n permit such differences, even if the differences would be\n considered inconsequential by such Rules.\n\n Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not\n have any legal force.\n\n'),(496125,'zefram',NULL,1324,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1324 by Proposal 1324, 21 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group may change its Name by the means of a message sent from\n its Vizier to the Registrar requesting its name be changed.\n However, the Vizier may send such a message only as permitted by\n the Ordinances of that Group; or, if the Ordinances of a Group\n are silent on the matter of changing the Group\'s name, with the\n unanimous consent of the Group\'s members.\n\n'),(496126,'zefram',NULL,1339,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1440, 21 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a\n Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as\n the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating,\n Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as\n defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the\n passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same\n effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules\n permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result\n of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the\n result of the effect or action of a Rule.\n\n All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following\n constraints:\n\n An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.\n\n Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly\n identify the Number of the Rule to be affected.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability\n Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If\n the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not\n specified, it shall be 1.\n\n Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the\n Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the\n Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that\n Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no\n Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to\n an appropriate category of eir own choice.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule\n must clearly specify the new value of the Rule\'s Mutability\n Index.\n\n Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly\n and unambigiously specify the changes which are to be made. If\n the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new\n text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual\n text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and\n capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would\n permit such differences, even if the differences would be\n considered inconsequential by such Rules.\n\n Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not\n have any legal force.\n\n'),(496124,'zefram',NULL,1322,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 1322 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496122,'zefram',NULL,1322,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A given Rule Change shall not take effect unless the Power of\n the instrument which specified it is at least as great as the\n greater of the current Power of the Rule to be Changed (if any)\n and the Power the Rule would have after the Change (if any).\n\n'),(496123,'zefram',NULL,1322,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal can generally, as part of its effect, modify the\n power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its\n own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power\n greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified\n by a proposal causes that modification to be void and without\n effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the\n quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for\n the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.\n\n When a rule is modified, the Rulekeepor shall generally record\n an increase by one in its revision number. If a single proposal\n modifies a regulation several times, the Rulekeepor shall only\n record a single increase of its revision number.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n modified.\n\n'),(496121,'zefram',NULL,1322,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2398, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called\n its Power, which determines its ability to take effect.\n\n The Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability\n Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained.\n\n The Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index\n of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained.\n\n No Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than\n the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if\n any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after\n the change, if any.\n\n'),(496120,'zefram',NULL,1322,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 5 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called\n its Power, which determines its ability to take effect.\n\n The Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability\n Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained.\n\n The Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index\n of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained.\n\n No Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than\n the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if\n any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after\n the change, if any.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496119,'zefram',NULL,1322,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1322 by Proposal 1322, 21 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called\n its Power, which determines its ability to take effect.\n\n The Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability\n Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained.\n\n The Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index\n of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained.\n\n No Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than\n the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if\n any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after\n the change, if any.\n\n'),(496117,'zefram',NULL,1281,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1281 by Proposal 1281, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A New Rule, when it is first enacted, shall have a Mutability\n Index of 1, unless another Rule allows a different Mutability\n Index.\n\n'),(496118,'zefram',NULL,1288,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1288 by Proposal 1288, 25 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a Nomic Entity known as the Point Reserve, which is\n capable of possessing Points. Entities may transfer Points\n in their possession to the Point Reserve.\n\n If a Rule states that Points are to be taken from an Entity,\n and no Rule states where the Points are to be transferred to,\n the Points shall be transferred to the Point Reserve.\n\n All points transferred to the Point Reserve are destroyed.\n\n If at any time subsequent to the adoption of this Rule, there\n is no other Rule which refers to \"the Point Reserve\", this\n rule shall be deleted.\n\n'),(496115,'zefram',NULL,1274,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3927 (harvel), 10 October 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Index (plural: Indices) is a Nomic Property. The value of an\n Index shall be either a non-negative real number or the special\n value Unanimity.\n\n An Index of Unanimity is greater than any other Index. When\n comparing other Indices, the Index which is numerically greater\n is the greater Index.\n\n'),(496116,'zefram',NULL,1274,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 1274 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496114,'zefram',NULL,1274,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2053, 19 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a class of Entities known as \"Indices\" (singular:\n \"Index\"). An Index shall have a value, which is either a\n non-negative real number or the special value \"Unanimity\".\n\n An Index of Unanimity is greater than any other Index. When\n comparing other Indices, the Index which is numerically greater\n is the greater Index.\n\n'),(496111,'zefram',NULL,1079,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1079 by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496112,'zefram',NULL,1255,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1255 by Proposal 1255, 12 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At noon GMT on Monday of each Nomic Week, the Banker shall levy\n a Tax on all Marks accounts except the Bank. The Tax for\n Players shall be 1% of all Marks owned by that Player in excess\n of 1.00, and the Tax for all non-Player Marks-holding Entities\n (excluding the Bank) shall be 1% of all Marks owned by that\n entity. All proceeds from this Tax shall be entered into the\n Bank.\n\n'),(496113,'zefram',NULL,1274,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1274 by Proposal 1274, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a class of Entities known as \"Indices\" (singular:\n \"Index\"). An Index shall have a value, which is either a\n non-negative real number or the special value \"Unanimity\".\n\n Let Indices be ordered such that for any two Indices X and Y, X\n is greater than Y if and only if either both X and Y are real\n numbers and X is numerically greater than Y, or X is the special\n value Unanimity and Y is a real number.\n\n'),(496110,'zefram',NULL,1079,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) When a Rule requires a random choice to be made, then the\n choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution\n among the possible outcomes the Rules provide for making\n that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability\n distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall\n be used.\n\n (b) Where the Rules do not indicate who is required to make a\n particular random choice, it shall be made by the Speaker.\n\n (c) When making a random choice as required by the Rules, a\n Player may rely on any physical or computational process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.\n\n (d) For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid that\n is not specially weighted has a probability distribution\n among the possible outcomes that is reasonably close to\n uniform.\n\n (e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of\n whether a method\'s probability distribution among the\n possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by\n the Rules.\n\n'),(496109,'zefram',NULL,1079,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4368 (Steve), 29 August 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) When a Rule requires a random choice to be made, then the\n choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution\n among the possible outcomes the Rules provide for making\n that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability\n distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall\n be used.\n\n (b) Where the Rules do not indicate who is required to make a\n particular random choice, it shall be made by the Speaker.\n\n (c) When making a random choice as required by the Rules, a\n Player may rely on any physical or computational process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.\n\n (d) For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid or\n coin that is not specially weighted has a probability\n distribution among the possible outcomes that is reasonably\n close to uniform.\n\n (e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of\n whether a method\'s probability distribution among the\n possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by\n the Rules.\n\n'),(496107,'zefram',NULL,1079,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1648, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a rule requires a random choice, that choice shall be made\n among all the possible choices with equal probability.\n\n Because of the impossibility of finding a truly random test,\n \"equal\", for the purposes of the above statement, shall mean\n \"reasonably close to equal\". It is up to common sense to\n determine what is reasonably close to equal; however, the burden\n of proof of a method\'s randomness lies with the Player who used\n the method.\n\n The probability of a Platonic solid or coin, which is not\n specially weighted, falling on any given face is, for the\n purposes of this Rule, close enough to equal to satisfy the\n above requirement.\n\n'),(496108,'zefram',NULL,1079,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 2806, 8 February 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a rule requires a random choice, that choice shall be made\n among all the possible choices with equal probability.\n\n Because of the impossibility of finding a truly random test,\n \"equal\", for the purposes of the above statement, shall mean\n \"reasonably close to equal\". It is up to common sense to\n determine what is reasonably close to equal; however, the burden\n of proof of a method\'s randomness lies with the Player who used\n the method.\n\n The probability of a Platonic solid or coin, which is not\n specially weighted, falling on any given face is, for the\n purposes of this Rule, close enough to equal to satisfy the\n above requirement.\n\n The Speaker shall make all random determinations required by the\n Rules except when the Rules specify another party to make the\n determination.\n\n'),(496105,'zefram',NULL,1070,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2399, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The\n Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy.\n Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games\n in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the\n Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be\n created.\n\n The Ambassador shall report to the Public Forum once a Nomic\n Week on any new Foreign Policy developments of that Nomic Week\n or the previous one. The Ambassador shall receive a salary of\n two (2) Points.\n\n Directives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a\n single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner.\n\n The Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy\n Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least\n once per Nomic Game Week.\n\n'),(496106,'zefram',NULL,1079,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 1079 by Proposal 1079, ca. Oct. 11 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All occurrences of the word \"random\" or forms of it shall be\n taken to mean \"any one of the choices with equally distributed\n possibility for each choice\".\n\n'),(496104,'zefram',NULL,1070,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The\n Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy.\n Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games\n in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the\n Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be\n created.\n\n The Ambassador shall report to the Public Forum once a Nomic\n Week on any new Foreign Policy developments of that Nomic Week\n or the previous one. The Ambassador shall receive a salary of\n two (2) Points.\n\n Directives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a\n single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner.\n A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an\n Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n The Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy\n Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least\n once per Nomic Game Week.\n\n'),(496103,'zefram',NULL,1070,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The\n Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy.\n Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games\n in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the\n Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be\n created.\n\n The Ambassador shall report to the Public Forum once a Nomic\n Week on any new Foreign Policy developements of that Nomic Week\n or the previous one. The Ambassador shall receive a salary of\n two (2) Points.\n\n Directives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a\n single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner.\n A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an\n Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n The Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy\n Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least\n once per Nomic Game Week.\n\n'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (496102,'zefram',NULL,1070,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1468, 8 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The\n Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy.\n Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games\n in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the\n Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be\n created.\n\n The Ambassador shall report to the Public Forum once a Nomic\n Week on any new Foreign Policy developements of that Nomic Week\n or the previous one. the Ambassador shall receive a salary of\n two (2) Points.\n\n Directives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a\n single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner.\n A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an\n Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n The Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy\n Directives. The Ambassador shall publish active FPD\'s at least\n once per Nomic Game Week.\n\n'),(496101,'zefram',NULL,1070,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1333, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The\n Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy.\n Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games\n in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the\n Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be\n created.\n\n The Ambassador shall report to the Public Forum once a Nomic\n Week on any new Foreign Policy developements of that Nomic Week\n or the previous one. In any Nomic Week in which Foreign Policy\n activity occurs, the Ambassador shall receive a salary of two\n (2) Points.\n\n Directives may be issued directing the Ambassador to conduct a\n single piece of Foreign Policy Business in a specified manner.\n A Proposal containing a Foreign Policy Directive shall have an\n Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n The Ambassador shall maintain a record of all Foreign Policy\n Directives.\n\n'),(496100,'zefram',NULL,1061,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2032, 4 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the first five consecutive Nomic Weeks following the\n registration of a Player who has not played in this Nomic\n previously, that Player shall receive 5 Points from the Bank\n for each week in which e submits one or more Proposals to the\n Promotor. These transfers are to be reported by the Promotor\n no later than the time at which any such Proposals are\n distributed. Furthermore, any penalties which are the direct\n result of voting on such Proposals are halved.\n\n'),(496099,'zefram',NULL,1061,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1530, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the first five consecutive Nomic Weeks following the\n registration of a Player who has not played in this Nomic\n previously, that Player shall receive 5 Points for each\n week in which e submits one or more Proposals to the Promotor,\n and any penalties which are the direct result of voting on\n such Proposals are halved; all of these shall be reported to\n the Scorekeepor by the Promotor.\n\n'),(496098,'zefram',NULL,1061,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1061 by Proposal 1061, 20 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the first five consecutive Nomic Weeks following the\n registration of a Player who has not played in this Nomic\n previously, that Player shall receive 5 Points for each\n week in which e submits one or more Proposals to the Speaker,\n and any penalties which are the direct result of voting on\n such Proposals are halved; all of these shall be reported to\n the Scorekeepor by the Speaker.\n\n'),(496096,'zefram',NULL,1054,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1332, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The assigned Category of an existing Rule may be changed by\n means of a Directive to change the Category of that Rule. Such\n a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to be\n changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category. The\n Proposal containing such a Directive must have an Adoption Index\n of at least 2.\n\n'),(496097,'zefram',NULL,1054,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1740, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The assigned Category of an existing Rule may be changed by\n means of a Directive to change the Category of that Rule. Such\n a Directive shall clearly state the Rule whose Category is to be\n changed, its old Category, and its proposed new Category.\n\n'),(496095,'zefram',NULL,1052,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1740, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n New Rule Categories may be created by means of a Directive to\n create the new Category. Such a Directive shall clearly state\n the name of the Category to be created.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall include all existing Categories in the\n publication of the Logical Rule Set, even if a given Category\n contains no Rules.\n\n'),(496093,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1048 by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496094,'zefram',NULL,1052,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1331, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n New Rule Categories may be created by means of a Directive to\n create the new Category. Such a Directive shall clearly state\n the name of the Category to be created. The Proposal containing\n such a Directive must have an Adoption Index of at least 2.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall include all existing Categories in the\n publication of the Logical Rule Set, even if a given Category\n contains no Rules.\n\n'),(496092,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing\n Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does\n not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When\n doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and\n assign the Rule to this new Category.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.\n\n If the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must publicly\n announce it no later than the first subsequent publication of\n the Logical Ruleset.\n\n The Rulekeepor is authorized to change the name of a Rule\n Category or change the Category to which a Rule is assigned\n Without Objection.\n\n'),(496091,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), 23 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing\n Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does\n not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When\n doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and\n assign the Rule to this new Category.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.\n\n If the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must announce\n it in the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent\n publication of the Logical Ruleset.\n\n The Rulekeepor is authorized to change the name of a Rule\n Category or change the Category to which a Rule is assigned\n Without Objection.\n\n'),(496090,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), 15 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing\n Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does\n not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When\n doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and\n assign the Rule to this new Category.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.\n\n If the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must announce\n it in the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent\n publication of the Logical Ruleset.\n\n'),(496089,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a format of the Ruleset known as the Logical Ruleset.\n In this format, each Rule is assigned to a Rule Category, and\n the Rules are grouped according to their Category. Within a\n Category, the ordering of Rules is decided by the Rulekeepor.\n All existing Rule Categories must be listed, along with a brief\n description, even if no Rules are currently assigned to the\n Category.\n\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing\n Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does\n not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When\n doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and\n assign the Rule to this new Category.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.\n\n If the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must announce\n it in the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent\n publication of the Logical Ruleset.\n\n'),(496088,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2538, 13 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The mandated weekly posting of the Ruleset shall be done in the\n \"Logical Rule Set Format\". In this format, each Rule is assigned\n to a principal Category, and the Rules are grouped according to\n their Category. Within a Category, the ordering of Rules is\n decided by the Rulekeepor. All existing Rule Categories must be\n listed, along with a brief description, whether or not any Rules\n currently are assigned to the Category.\n\n Whenever a new Rule is added, it is assigned to the most\n appropriate Category in the opinion of the Rulekeepor, who must\n choose from existing Categories. Alternatively, the Rulekeepor\n may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new\n Category, if this is permitted by other Rules. Once e assigns a\n Rule to a Category, e may not change it except as provided by\n other Rules.\n\n However, if the Proposal itself stipulates a specific Category,\n as provided for by other Rules, the Rulekeepor is required to\n abide by this, if it is a valid defined Category. Also, a Rule\'s\n Category may be changed by a type of Proposal defined in other\n Rules.\n\n'),(496087,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever the Rulekeepor publishes the complete Rule Set, e shall\n do so in the \"Logical Rule Set Format\". In this format, each\n Rule is assigned to a principal Category, and the Rules are\n grouped according to their Category. Within a Category, the\n ordering of Rules is decided by the Rulekeepor. All existing\n Rule Categories must be listed, along with a brief description,\n whether or not any Rules currently are assigned to the Category.\n\n Whenever a new Rule is added, it is assigned to the most\n appropriate Category in the opinion of the Rulekeepor, who must\n choose from existing Categories. Alternatively, the Rulekeepor\n may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new\n Category, if this is permitted by other Rules. Once e assigns a\n Rule to a Category, e may not change it except as provided by\n other Rules.\n\n However, if the Proposal itself stipulates a specific Category,\n as provided for by other Rules, the Rulekeepor is required to\n abide by this, if it is a valid defined Category. Also, a Rule\'s\n Category may be changed by a type of Proposal defined in other\n Rules.\n\n'),(496085,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1047 by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), 6 April 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496086,'zefram',NULL,1048,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1561, 17 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever the Rulekeepor publishes the complete Rule Set, e shall\n do so in the \"Logical Rule Set Format\". In this format, each\n Rule is assigned to a principal Category, and the Rules are\n grouped according to their Category. Within a Category, the\n ordering of Rules is decided by the Rulekeepor. All existing\n Rule Catories must be listed, along with a brief description,\n whether or not any Rules currently are assigned to the Category.\n\n Whenever a new Rule is added, it is assigned to the most\n appropriate Category in the opinion of the Rulekeepor, who must\n choose from existing Categories. Alternatively, the Rulekeepor\n may create a new Rule Category and assign the Rule to this new\n Category, if this is permitted by other Rules. Once e assigns a\n Rule to a Category, e may not change it except as provided by\n other Rules.\n\n However, if the Proposal itself stipulates a specific Category,\n as provided for by other Rules, the Rulekeepor is required to\n abide by this, if it is a valid defined Category. Also, a Rule\'s\n Category may be changed by a type of Proposal defined in other\n Rules.\n\n'),(496083,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3717 (Kolja A.), 27 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted\n with no votes cast AGAINST it, and at least three different\n voting entities voted for it, that Player is awarded the Patent\n Title of Zeitgeist. The Assessor is responsible for detecting\n and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, the\n Assessor shall pay out one P-Note to that Player.\n\n'),(496084,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), 6 November 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted\n with no votes cast AGAINST it, and at least three different\n voting entities voted for it, that Player is awarded the Patent\n Title of Zeitgeist. The Assessor is responsible for detecting\n and reporting the awarding of this Patent Title.\n\n'),(496081,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3474 (Swann), 2 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted\n with no votes cast AGAINST it, that Player is awarded the Patent\n Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of\n Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding\n of this Patent Title.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one\n P-Note is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this\n transfer.\n\n'),(496082,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted\n with no votes cast AGAINST it, that Player is awarded the Patent\n Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of\n Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding\n of this Patent Title.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, the\n Assessor shall pay out one P-Note to that Player.\n\n'),(496079,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted\n with no votes cast AGAINST it, that Player is awarded the Patent\n Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of\n Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding\n of this Patent Title.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one\n Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this\n transfer.\n\n'),(496080,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Interested Proposal Proposed by some Player is adopted\n with no votes cast AGAINST it, that Player is awarded the Patent\n Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of the Title of\n Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly awarded. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting the awarding\n of this Patent Title.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one\n Voting Token is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this\n transfer.\n\n'),(496078,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 2747 (favor), 18 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Proposal made by some Player is adopted unanimously\n (that is, no votes are cast AGAINST it), and the Proposal\n is not a Disinterested Proposal, and the Proposer of that\n Proposal is a Player, then that Proposal\'s Proposer is\n awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of\n the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly\n awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award of\n this Title and reporting it to the Registrar.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one\n Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this\n transfer.\n\n'),(496076,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2486, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Proposal made by some Player is adopted unanimously\n (that is, no votes are cast AGAINST it), the Player who\n proposed the Proposal is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist.\n All current holders of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title\n whenever it is newly awarded. The Assessor is responsible for\n detecting the award of this Title and reporting it to the\n Registrar.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one\n Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this\n transfer.\n\n'),(496077,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2522, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Proposal made by some Player is adopted unanimously\n (that is, no votes are cast AGAINST it), and the Proposer of\n that Proposal is a Player, then that Proposal\'s Proposer is\n awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist. All current holders of\n the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly\n awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award of\n this Title and reporting it to the Registrar.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one\n Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this\n transfer.\n\n'),(496073,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1044 by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496074,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1047 by Proposal 1047, 20 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The player who most recently proposed a proposal which\n passed unanimously shall hold the title of Zeitgeist.\n\n'),(496075,'zefram',NULL,1047,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1707, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Proposal made by some Player is adopted unanimously\n (that is, no votes are cast AGAINST it), the Player who\n proposed the Proposal is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist,\n unless that Player already holds the Title. All current holders\n of the Title of Zeitgeist lose the Title whenever it is newly\n awarded. The Assessor is responsible for detecting the award\n of this Title and reporting it to the Registrar.\n\n When a Player is awarded the Patent Title of Zeitgeist, one\n Extra Vote is transferred to that Player from the Bank. The\n Assessor is responsible for detecting and reporting this\n transfer.\n\n'),(496071,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), 13 February 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Unique Patent Title is a Patent Title. If a person is\n awarded a Unique Patent Title, then it shall automatically be\n revoked from any person already Bearing that Title.\n\n'),(496072,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is unique when the rules say it is. If a person\n is awarded a unique Patent Title, then the Herald shall revoke\n it as soon as possible from any person already Bearing that\n Title.\n\n The following are Unique Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Robespierre, which shall be awarded to the Player who\n called for a Revolt, if the Revolt succeeds.\n\n (b) Miscreant, which shall be awarded to a Player who has at\n least ten Blots and has a greater number of Blots than any\n other Player, if there is such a Player. It shall\n automatically be revoked if either condition becomes false.\n\n (c) Pugachev, which shall be awarded to the player who called\n for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.\n\n (d) Manouchian, which shall be awarded to the player who called\n for a Revolt and deregistered before the Registrar\n announced that the Revolt succeeded.\n\n'),(496070,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), 27 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Unique Patent Title is a Patent Title. If a person is\n awarded a Unique Patent Title, then it shall automatically be\n revoked from any person already holding that Title.\n\n'),(496069,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist a class of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent\n Titles. At most one person may hold a specific Unique Patent\n Title at any one time. Unique Patent Titles are the\n same as Patent Titles in all other respects.\n\n'),(496068,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a subset of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent\n Titles. A Unique Patent Title is awarded to a single person, at\n the same time as the creation of the Unique Patent Title; no\n other person may ever hold that Patent Title.\n\n A Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to\n award the Unique Patent Title to the specified Player. Such a\n Directive shall clearly state the Unique Patent Title to be\n awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall\n receive the Unique Title.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Unique Patent Titles\n as part of the Gold Pages.\n\n'),(496067,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2399, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a subset of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent\n Titles. A Unique Patent Title is awarded to a single person, at\n the same time as the creation of the Unique Patent Title; no\n other person may ever hold that Patent Title. The Registrar\n shall keep track of which Unique Patent Titles have been\n awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, and shall publish\n this information in the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n A Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to\n award the Unique Patent Title to the specified Player. Such a\n Directive shall clearly state the Unique Patent Title to be\n awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall\n receive the Unique Title.\n\n'),(496065,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1335, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a subset of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent\n Titles. A Unique Patent Title is awarded to a single person, at\n the same time as the creation of the Unique Patent Title; no\n other person may ever hold that Patent Title. The Registrar\n shall record all Unique Patent Titles and the people to whom\n they are awarded.\n\n A Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to\n award the Unique Patent Title to the specified Player. Such a\n Directive shall clearly state the Unique Patent Title to be\n awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall\n receive the Unique Title. The Proposal containing such a\n Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n'),(496066,'zefram',NULL,1044,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a subset of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent\n Titles. A Unique Patent Title is awarded to a single person, at\n the same time as the creation of the Unique Patent Title; no\n other person may ever hold that Patent Title. The Registrar\n shall keep track of which Unique Patent Titles have been\n awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, and shall publish\n this information in the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n A Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to\n award the Unique Patent Title to the specified Player. Such a\n Directive shall clearly state the Unique Patent Title to be\n awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall\n receive the Unique Title. The Proposal containing such a\n Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n'),(496063,'zefram',NULL,1025,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1376, 17 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Entity called the Kudo (plural: Kudos). The\n amount of Kudos a Player holds is called eir Honour. All Players\n possess at all times an integral number of Kudos not less than\n 0.\n\n A new Player, or a Player with no Kudo record starts with 20\n Kudos. If a Player is deregistered but returns within three\n months, e starts with the same number of Kudos e had when e\n left. If e returns after a longer time than three months, e is\n treated as a new Player with respect to Kudos.\n\n'),(496064,'zefram',NULL,1025,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4079 (Elysion), 30 October 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player\'s Honor is a measure of that Player\'s honor,\n measured in Kudos. The Honor of each Player is at all times\n a non-negative integer. A Player whose Honor is greater than\n 30 Kudos is a Samurai.\n\n New Players join the Game with an Honor of 20 Kudos. If a\n Player re-registers within three months of leaving Agora,\n e starts with the Honor e had at deregistration. Otherwise,\n a re-registering Player starts with the same Honor as a New\n Player.\n\n'),(496061,'zefram',NULL,1021,'Amended(5)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be, associated with each Rule, an Index called that\n Rule\'s Mutability Index. The Mutability Index of a Rule is a\n part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the\n application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can\n change a Rule\'s Mutability Index.\n\n The Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it\n is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which would do\n so does not have legal effect.\n\n'),(496062,'zefram',NULL,1024,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive 3 Marks from\n the Bank; however, if the new Player has previously been a\n Player within the last three months, e shall receive however\n many Marks e had when e left, or 3 Marks, whichever is less.\n\n'),(496060,'zefram',NULL,1021,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2579, 21 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be, associated with each Rule, an Index called that\n Rule\'s Mutability Index. The Mutability Index of a Rule is a\n part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the\n application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can\n change a Rule\'s Mutability Index.\n\n The Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it\n is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which would do\n so does not have legal effect.\n\n A Rule whose Mutability Index is 1 is known as a \"Mutable\" Rule.\n All other Rules are known as \"Semimutable\" Rules.\n\n'),(496059,'zefram',NULL,1021,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2551, 22 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be, associated with each Rule, an Index called that\n Rule\'s Mutability Index. The Mutability Index of a Rule is a\n part of that Rule, and cannot be changed except by the\n application of a Rule Change of a type that the Rules state can\n change a Rule\'s Mutability Index.\n\n The Mutability Index of a Rule can never be changed such that it\n is less than 1 or greater than 4; any Rule Change which would do\n so does not have legal effect.\n\n A Rule whose Mutability Index is 1 is known as a \"Mutable\" Rule.\n A Rule whose Mutability Index is Unanimity is known as an\n \"Immutable\" Rule. All other Rules are known as \"Semimutable\"\n Rules.\n\n'),(496057,'zefram',NULL,1021,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1280, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Rule shall have associated with it an Index known as its\n Mutability Index. No Rule may have a Mutability Index less than\n 1.\n\n A Rule which has a Mutability Index of 1 is also known as\n \"Mutable\"; a Rule which has a Mutability Index of Unanimity is\n also known as \"Immutable\". All other Rules are known as\n \"Semimutable\".\n\n'),(496058,'zefram',NULL,1021,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1526, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Rule shall have associated with it an Index known as its\n Mutability Index. No Rule may have a Mutability Index less than\n 1 or greater than 4.\n\n A Rule which has a Mutability Index of 1 is also known as\n \"Mutable\"; a Rule which has a Mutability Index of Unanimity is\n also known as \"Immutable\". All other Rules are known as\n \"Semimutable\".\n\n'),(496056,'zefram',NULL,1008,'Amended(6)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Samurai is a Player whose Honour is more than 30 Kudos.\n There exists the Patent Title of Shogun.\n\n A Samurai whose Honour is at least as great as that of any\n other Samurai and who does not already possess the Patent\n Title of Shogun is awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.\n\n The Patent Title of Shogun is revoked automatically from any\n Player holding it who is not a Samurai.\n\n This Patent Title shall not be awarded or revoked except as\n specified in this Rule; this Rule takes precedence over any Rule\n which would permit otherwise.\n\n'),(496055,'zefram',NULL,1008,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Patent Title of \"Shogun\".\n\n Whenever a Player is a Samurai, that Player has at least as\n much Honor as every other Player, and that Player does not\n already hold the Patent Title of Shogun, that Player is\n automatically awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.\n\n The Patent Title of Shogun is revoked automatically from any\n Player who holds it if e ceases to be a Samurai.\n\n A Samurai is a Player whose Honor is more than 30 Kudos.\n\n This Patent Title shall not be awarded or revoked except as\n specified in this Rule; this Rule takes precedence over any Rule\n which would permit otherwise.\n\n The Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player\n receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such\n award or revocation occurs.\n\n'),(496054,'zefram',NULL,1008,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 2740 (Andre), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Patent Title of \"Shogun\".\n\n Whenever a Player is a Samurai, that Player has at least as\n much Honor as every other Player, and that Player does not\n already hold the Patent Title of Shogun, that Player is\n automatically awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.\n\n The Patent Title of Shogun is revoked automatically from any\n Player who holds it if e ceases to be a Samurai.\n\n A Samurai is a Player whose Honor is more than 30 Kudos.\n\n This Patent Title shall never be awarded or revoked by\n Directive.\n\n The Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player\n receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such\n award or revocation occurs.\n\n'),(496053,'zefram',NULL,1008,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2615, 1 June 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Patent Title of \"Shogun\".\n\n Whenever a Player becomes a Samurai, and that Player has at\n least as much Honor as every other Player, that Player is\n automaticall awarded the Patent Title of Shogun.\n\n The Patent Title of Shogun is revoked automatically from any\n Player who holds it if e ceases to be a Samurai.\n\n A Samurai is a Player whose Honor is more than 30 Kudos.\n\n This Patent Title shall never be awarded or revoked by\n Directive.\n\n The Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player\n receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such\n award or revocation occurs.\n\n'),(496052,'zefram',NULL,1008,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2502, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Patent Title of \"Shogun\".\n\n The Patent Title of Shogun is awarded automatically to a Player\n when e both has at least 30 Kudos and has at least as much\n Honour as every other Player.\n\n The Patent Title of Shogun is revoked automatically from any\n Player who holds it when eir Honour drops below 30 Kudos.\n\n This Patent Title shall never be awarded or revoked by\n Directive.\n\n The Herald shall announce in the Public Forum whenever a Player\n receives or loses this Title, as soon as possible after such\n award or revocation occurs.\n\n'),(496051,'zefram',NULL,963,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 963 by Proposal 963 (Stella?), 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an entity called the Kudo (plural: Kudos).\n The amount of Kudos a Player holds is called eis Honour.\n\n Initially every Player holds 20 Kudos. New Players shall start\n with 20 Kudos as well. No Player shall have less than zero\n Kudos. No Player shall have a non-integral number of Kudos.\n The number of Kudos held by each Player shall be kept track of\n by the Herald (an Officer) and published at least weekly.\n\n No more than once per Nomic week each Player may send a message\n to the Herald requesting the transfer of exactly one Kudo from\n one Player of eis choice to another Player of eis choice. The\n requesting Player may not eimself be the receiving Player.\n\n A Player who holds zero Kudos shall be known and addressed as\n `Honourless Worm\' and shall address Players with more Honour as\n `Your Honour\'.\n\n A Player who holds more than fourty Kudos shall be known and\n addressed as `Mighty Samourai\' and may address Players with less\n Honour in any way e sees fit.\n\n'),(496049,'zefram',NULL,942,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 942 by Proposal 3703 (Steve), 9 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496050,'zefram',NULL,956,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 956 by Proposal 956 (Garth), 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Rule will directly change the actions required of or\n forbidden to the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal,\n then that Proposal shall be considered Contested. The Speaker\n shall declare if e opposes the Proposal when e distributes the\n Proposal. A Contested Proposal shall have its Adoption Factor\n doubled.\n\n'),(496048,'zefram',NULL,942,'Amended(7) Cosmetically by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play\n impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not\n appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination\n is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed\n since the CFJ was made, then the Player who holds the Office\n of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n A Speaker who makes further play impossible by eir actions or\n lack thereof commits the Crime of Speaker Impossibility, a Class\n A Crime.\n\n \"Impossible\" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic\n behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or\n uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include\n normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers\n for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but\n not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution,\n resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of\n the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into\n account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity\n to defend eirself.\n\n This Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and\n takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent\n this class of Judgement.\n\n'),(496047,'zefram',NULL,942,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play\n impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not\n appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination\n is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed\n since the CFJ was made, then the Player who holds the Office\n of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n A Speaker who makes further play impossible by eir actions or\n lack thereof commits a Class A Crime.\n\n \"Impossible\" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic\n behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or\n uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include\n normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers\n for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but\n not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution,\n resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of\n the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into\n account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity\n to defend eirself.\n\n This Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and\n takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent\n this class of Judgement.\n\n'),(496045,'zefram',NULL,942,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play\n impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not\n appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination\n is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed\n since the CFJ was made, then if there is a Speaker-Elect e\n immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a\n Voter. If not, a new Speaker is selected according to the Order\n of Succession, as defined elsewhere, with the Player who made\n the CFJ as Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records,\n etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Sepaker who\n makes further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof\n commits a Class A Crime.\n\n \"Impossible\" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic\n behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or\n uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include\n normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers\n for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but\n not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution,\n resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of\n the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into\n account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity\n to defend eirself.\n\n This Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and\n takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent\n this class of Judgement.\n\n'),(496046,'zefram',NULL,942,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2506, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play\n impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not\n appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination\n is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed\n since the CFJ was made, then if there is a Speaker-Elect e\n immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a\n Voter. If not, a new Speaker is selected according to the Order\n of Succession, as defined elsewhere, with the Player who made\n the CFJ as Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records,\n etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker who\n makes further play impossible by eir actions or lack thereof\n commits a Class A Crime.\n\n \"Impossible\" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic\n behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or\n uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include\n normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers\n for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but\n not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution,\n resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of\n the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into\n account, and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity\n to defend eirself.\n\n This Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and\n takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent\n this class of Judgement.\n\n'),(496044,'zefram',NULL,942,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play\n impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not\n appealed within the allowed time, or if such a determination\n is made upon appeal of a CFJ; AND if the Speaker has not changed\n since the CFJ was made, then if there is a Speaker-Elect e\n immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a\n Voter. If not, a new Speaker is selected according to the Order\n of Succession, as defined elsewhere, with the Player who made\n the CFJ as Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records,\n etc., but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. If a Speaker\n is replaced in this manner, all the Points in eir Treasury are\n transferred to the Bank, and e further receives 15 Blots, the\n receipt of which must be reported by the Player who made the\n CFJ.\n\n \"Impossible\" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic\n behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or\n uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include\n normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers\n for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but\n not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution,\n resetting of scores, or accidental illegal actions. The Judge of\n the CFJ *must* take these extremely tight standards into account,\n and the accused Speaker *must* be given an opportunity to defend\n eirself.\n\n This Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and\n takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent\n this class of Judgement.\n\n'),(496042,'zefram',NULL,939,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 939 by Proposal 939 (KoJen), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Responsibility for detecting and reporting score changes\n resulting from a CFJ being judged TRUE is given to the Clerk of\n the Courts, who must notify the Scorekeepor as soon as possible,\n and no later than three days following the decision of the CFJ.\n\n'),(496043,'zefram',NULL,942,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 942 by Proposal 942 (KoJen), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Speaker is determined by CFJ to have made further play\n impossible by eir actions or lack thereof, and the CFJ is not\n appealed within the allowed time, then a new Speaker is selected\n according to the \"Rules of Succession\", or if no such rules are\n defined, the other Player not on hold with the highest Score\n becomes the Speaker. This does not force the Game to be over in\n this case, and Scores are not reset to 0. The Game continues\n until a Player Wins, at which time a new Game is begun and the\n Winner becomes the Speaker. The new Speaker shall make\n reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker\'s materials:\n proposal queue, voting records, etc., but if this is not\n possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be\n resubmitted by the Players. If a Speaker is replaced in this\n manner, e has eir score set to minus 2N Points immediately,\n where N is the number of Points required for a Player to Win the\n Game; this is the Scorekeepor\'s responsibility.\n\n \"Impossible\" is defined here to mean overwhelmingly psychotic\n behavior, a complete lack of interest in the Game, or\n uncooperativeness of the highest order. It does *not* include\n normal Speaker latitudes which have been taken by past Speakers\n for various reasons, whether justifiable or not, including but\n not limited to: temporary suspension of proposal distribution,\n resetting of scores, or the commission of Crimes or accidental\n illegal actions. The Judge of the CFJ *must* take these\n extremely tight standards into account, and the accused Speaker\n *must* be given an opportunity to defend eirself.\n\n This Rule adds to the set of valid classes of Judgements, and\n takes precedence over other Rules which may attempt to prevent\n this class of Judgement.\n\n'),(496036,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice, serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary, and for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Justiciar\'s monthly report shall contain the following\n information for each organization:\n\n a) Its name.\n b) Its administrator.\n c) Its executor.\n d) The maintainer of its charter.\n e) A list of players within its jurisdiction.\n f) The charter of each organization.\n\n In addition, as soon as possible after the Justiciar is informed\n of a change in any of the properties a-f above for an\n organization, the Justiciar shall report the change.\n\n'),(496037,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice, serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\n'),(496038,'zefram',NULL,910,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 910 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496039,'zefram',NULL,913,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 913 by Proposal 913 (Garth), 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Official Name of this Nomic shall be Agora.\n\n'),(496040,'zefram',NULL,913,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 1020 by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496041,'zefram',NULL,938,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 938 by Proposal 938 (KoJen), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Ambassador is hereby directed to obtain new Players for\n Agora Nomic. For each new Player who joins at the invitation of\n the Ambassador and remains an Active Player for a full Game, the\n Ambassador receives 6 Points. The Ambassador is encouraged to\n share this bounty with the new Player. Responsibility for\n notifying the Scorekeepor is given to the Ambassador, who must\n make the notification within the next Game following the first\n full Game for which the new Player is registered. The new Player\n must mention that e was invited by the Ambassador before the end\n of the first full Game; this must be made to the public forum,\n or to the Registrar.\n\n'),(496031,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to\n Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.\n\n The Justiciar does not receive a fixed salary.\n\n The Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of\n the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the\n Office of Justiciar.\n\n If the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed\n from the Office of Justiciar.\n\n'),(496032,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Justiciar\n\n Let there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to\n Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.\n\n The Justiciar receives a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s\n budget.\n\n The Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of\n the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the\n Office of Justiciar.\n\n If the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed\n from the Office of Justiciar.\n\n'),(496033,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Justiciar, whose responsibility it is\n to serve on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\n The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts cannot Nominate for the\n Office of Justiciar.\n\n If the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed\n from the Office of Justiciar.\n\n'),(496034,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice and for serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\n Neither the Speaker nor the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) may\n nominate for the office of Justiciar; if the Justiciar ever\n becomes CotC, e is removed from the office of Justiciar.\n\n'),(496035,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice and for serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\n'),(496030,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to\n Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.\n\n The Justiciar does not receive a fixed weekly salary.\n\n The Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of\n the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the\n Office of Justiciar.\n\n If the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed\n from the Office of Justiciar.\n\n'),(496029,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2569, 12 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty to\n Judge various matters of law when the Rules so require.\n\n The Justiciar does not receive a fixed weekly salary.\n\n The Speaker and the Player holding the Office of the Clerk of\n the Courts are not permitted to nominate in any Election for the\n Office of Justiciar.\n\n If the Player holding the Office of Justiciar becomes either\n Speaker or Clerk of the Courts, e is immediately retired from\n the Office of Justiciar.\n\n'),(496028,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of the Justiciar, with the duty of\n Judging various matters of law, when the Rules so require.\n\n The Justiciar shall receive no fixed weekly salary.\n\n A Vacant Office of Justiciar shall be filled by an Election\n according to the standard procedure, except that:\n\n * the Nominating Period shall be three days;\n * the Vote Collector shall be the Registrar, or in eir absence\n the Speaker; and\n * the Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are not permitted to\n be nominated.\n\n The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are prohibited from\n becoming the Justiciar. If the Player holding the Office of\n Justiciar becomes either Speaker or Clerk of the Courts, and\n thus is both Justiciar and either Speaker or Clerk of the Courts\n for a period of an entire week, e is removed as Justiciar and\n the Office becomes vacant.\n\n'),(496027,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1581, 15 May 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Justiciar\n\n Let there be an Office of Justiciar. The Justiciar shall have\n the duties of judging appeals when serving as Justice. E shall\n receive no weekly salary. A vacant Office of Justiciar is\n filled by an Election.\n\n As soon as possible after the office has become empty,\n the Registrar shall begin the Election by posting a call for\n nominations to the Public Forum.\n\n The Nominating Period shall be three days, and the Vote\n Collector shall be the Registrar.\n\n The Speaker or Clerk of the Courts may not nominate for this\n Election, and may not become Justiciar.\n\n'),(496026,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1511, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Office of Justiciar. The Justiciar shall have\n the duties of judging appeals when serving as Justice. E shall\n receive no weekly salary. A vacant Office of Justiciar is\n filled in the usual manner, but the Speaker or Clerk of the\n Courts may not become Justiciar.\n\n'),(496025,'zefram',NULL,910,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1447, 21 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be three Players known as the Justices, and an Office\n known as the Justiciar. The Justiciar shall not receive a\n weekly salary. The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are\n ineligible to be Justiciar.\n\n The positions of Justice shall be held by the Speaker, the Clerk\n of the Courts, and the Justiciar; or by their representatives\n as detailed in this Rule.\n\n The Justices shall have the duty to Judge Statements that have\n been Appealed. They shall receive the same compensation as\n Judges for each Statement so Judged.\n\n The Speaker and Clerk may delegate their duties as Justices to\n other willing Players if they desire. They must do so if a\n Player would otherwise hold more than one position of Justice.\n\n Any Justice must so delegate eir duties for a particular case\n if e made the original CFJ, if e was the Judge of the original\n CFJ, or if e was Accused by that CFJ of breaking a Rule.\n\n If no Player is willing to receive the duties of Justice for a\n case, the Clerk of the Courts shall select one randomly.\n\n'),(496024,'zefram',NULL,910,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 910 by Proposal 910 (Garth), 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be three Players known as the Justices, and an Office\n known as the Justiciar. The Justiciar shall not receive a\n weekly salary. The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts are\n ineligible to be Justiciar.\n\n The positions of Justice shall be held by the Speaker, the Clerk\n of the Courts, and the Justiciar; or by their representatives\n as detailed in this Rule.\n\n The Justices shall have the duty to Judge Statements that have\n been Appealed. They shall receive the same compensation as\n Judges for each Statement so Judged.\n\n The Speaker and Clerk may delegate their duties as Justices to\n other willing Players if they desire. They must do so if a\n Player would otherwise hold more than one position of Justice.\n\n Any Justice must so delegate eir duties for a particular case\n if e made the original CFJ, if e was the Judge of the original\n CFJ, or if e was Accused by that CFJ of breaking a Rule or\n committing a Crime.\n\n If no Player is willing to receive the duties of Justice for a\n case, the Clerk of the Courts shall select one randomly.\n\n'),(496023,'zefram',NULL,906,'Amended(6) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following classes of involuntary transfers of Currencies\n shall be detected by the Player specified below, within the time\n limit specified, if any.\n\n * Transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries:\n the Scorekeepor;\n\n * Transfers resulting from the End of a Game: the Scorekeepor;\n\n * Transfers resulting from the registration of a new Player or\n the deregistration of an existing Player: the Scorekeepor;\n\n * Transfers resulting from the dissolution of a Group: the\n Scorekeepor;\n\n * Transfers resulting from the change of Speakership: the\n Scorekeepor;\n\n * Transfers resulting from the submission of Proposals: the\n Promoter, not later than the message which distributes the\n Proposals;\n\n * Transfers resulting from Voting upon Proposals: the Assessor,\n not later the message announcing the Voting Results;\n\n * Transfers resulting from the assignment fees, salaries, or\n penalties to Judges or Justices: The Clerk of the Courts, not\n later than the message which announces the event which caused\n the mandated Transfer;\n\n * Transfers resulting from penalties or bonus imposed by the\n Rules, when the Rules do not specify another Player to make\n the report: the first Player to detect and report the\n conditions which cause the Transfer to be mandated.\n\n Other Rules may specify the party required to report a class of\n involuntary transfer not specified in this Rule.\n\n The specified Player shall report the transfer in question to\n the appropriate Recordkeepors. All transfers must be reported\n at least as soon as possible; if a sooner time is specified,\n that time takes precedence.\n\n'),(496022,'zefram',NULL,906,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1301, 4 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of\n Point changes and reporting them to the Scorekeepor is bestowed\n upon another Player:\n\n * All Point changes directly related to the submission of\n Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no\n later than the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from Vototron contributions:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from fees for judgements, salaries\n and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the\n Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later\n than the message announcing the outcome of the judgement.\n\n * Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility of\n Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week.\n\n * Point changes regarding the \"Squealer/Ninny\" Rule: If the\n Ninny must lose Points, the responsibility lies with the\n Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible.\n\n * Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying\n Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the\n payment is earned.\n\n The Scorekeepor notification must be via the public forum or, if\n individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented,\n must be made on a distribution list which is potentially\n available to anyone who wishes to subscribe to it. This\n paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require\n a private Scorekeepor notification. The notification need not be\n on a separate message, as long as the Scorekeepor is mentioned,\n and the message is on a list which is received by the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n Other classes of Point changes whose legal responsibilty for\n reporting is other than the Scorekeepor may be defined by other\n Rules.\n (*Was: 906*)\n\n'),(496021,'zefram',NULL,906,'Amended by Rule 750, 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of\n Point changes and reporting them to the Scorekeepor is bestowed\n upon another Player:\n\n * All Point changes directly related to the submission of\n Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no\n later than the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from Vototron contributions:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from fees for judgements, salaries\n and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the\n Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later\n than the message announcing the outcome of the judgement.\n\n * Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility of\n Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week.\n\n * Point changes regarding the \"Squealer/Ninny\" Rule: If the\n Ninny must lose Points, the responsibility lies with the\n Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible.\n\n * Marks interest: responsibility of Banker to nofify Scorekeepor\n as soon as possible following the mandated interst payment.\n\n * Proposal lottery: responsibility of Sweepstakes Officer, who\n must notify Scorekeepor as soon as possible after the drawing.\n\n * Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying\n Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the\n payment is earned.\n\n * Stock dividends: responsibility of the Scorekeepor who\n calculates the dividends earned. However The Banker must notify\n the Scorekeepor of changes in the Stock ownership.\n\n The Scorekeepor notification must be via the public forum or, if\n individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented,\n must be made on a distribution list which is potentially\n available to anyone who wishes to subscribe to it. This\n paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require\n a private Scorekeepor notification. The notification need not be\n on a separate message, as long as the Scorekeepor is mentioned,\n and the message is on a list which is received by the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n Other classes of Point changes whose legal responsibilty for\n reporting is other than the Scorekeepor may be defined by other\n Rules.\n (*Was: 906*)\n\n'),(496020,'zefram',NULL,906,'Amended by Proposal 937 (Stella?), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of\n Point changes and reporting them to the Scorekeepor is bestowed\n upon another Player:\n\n * All Point changes directly related to the submission of\n Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no\n later than the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from Vototron contributions:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from fees for judgements, salaries\n and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the\n Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later\n than the message announcing the outcome of the judgement.\n\n * Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility of\n Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week.\n\n * Point changes regarding the \"Squealer/Ninny\" Rule: If the\n Ninny must lose Points, the responsibility lies with the\n Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible.\n\n * Marks interest: responsibility of Banker to nofify Scorekeepor\n as soon as possible following the mandated interst payment.\n\n * Proposal lottery: responsibility of Sweepstakes Officer, who\n must notify Scorekeepor as soon as possible after the drawing.\n\n * Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying\n Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the\n payment is earned.\n\n * Stock dividends: responsibility of the Scorekeepor who\n calculates the dividends earned. However The Banker must notify\n the Scorekeepor of changes in the Stock ownership.\n\n The Scorekeepor notification must be via the public forum or, if\n individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented,\n must be made on a distribution list which is potentially\n available to anyone who wishes to subscribe to it. This\n paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require\n a private Scorekeepor notification. The notification need not be\n on a separate message, as long as the Scorekeepor is mentioned,\n and the message is on a list which is received by the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n Other classes of Point changes whose legal responsibilty for\n reporting is other than the Scorekeepor may be defined by other\n Rules.\n\n'),(496019,'zefram',NULL,906,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 906 by Proposal 906 (KoJen), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Legal Responsibility for detecting the following classes of\n Point changes and reporting them to the Scorekeepor is bestowed\n upon another Player:\n\n * All Point changes directly related to the submission of\n Proposals: responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no\n later than the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All Point changes directly related to voting on Proposals:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from Vototron contributions:\n responsibility of Speaker, who must report these no later than\n the message announcing the voting results.\n\n * All point changes resulting from fees for judgements, salaries\n and penalties given to judges: responsibility of Clerk of the\n Courts, who must report these as soon as possible, and no later\n than the message announcing the outcome of the judgement.\n\n * Electioneer per-position-filled salary: responsibility of\n Electioneer to notify Scorekeepor within one Week.\n\n * Point changes regarding the \"Squealer/Ninny\" Rule: If the\n Ninny must lose Points, the responsibility lies with the\n Squealer for informing the Scorekeepor as soon as possible.\n\n * Marks interest: responsibility of Banker to nofify Scorekeepor\n as soon as possible following the mandated interst payment.\n\n * Proposal lottery: responsibility of Sweepstakes Officer, who\n must notify Scorekeepor as soon as possible after the drawing.\n\n * Ambassador salary: responsibility of Ambassador for notifying\n Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the\n payment is earned.\n\n * Stock dividends: responsibility of the Banker for notifying\n Scorekeepor no later than one Week following the time the\n dividends are earned.\n\n The Scorekeepor notification must be via the public forum or, if\n individually subscribable distribution lists are implemented,\n must be made on a distribution list which is potentially\n available to anyone who wishes to subscribe to it. This\n paragraph takes precendence over other Rules which would require\n a private Scorekeepor notification. The notification need not be\n on a separate message, as long as the Scorekeepor is mentioned,\n and the message is on a list which is received by the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n Other classes of Point changes whose legal responsibilty for\n reporting is other than the Scorekeepor may be defined by other\n Rules.\n\n'),(496018,'zefram',NULL,905,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 905 by Proposal 905 (KoJen), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Rule mandates a change in Points, but no Rules exist which\n define the Player Legally Responsible for detecting and\n reporting the change to the Scorekeepor, then the Point change\n is cancelled.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules governing\n changes in Points, to the extent permitted.\n\n'),(496016,'zefram',NULL,902,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 902 by Proposal 902 (KoJen), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Salary of the Scorekeepor is 5 Points per Week.\n\n'),(496017,'zefram',NULL,903,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 903 by Proposal 903 (KoJen), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Classes of Point changes which the Scorekeepor is Legally\n Responsible for detecting and tabulating without a specific\n request by another Player include, but are not necessarily\n limited to the following:\n\n * Salaries which consist of a fixed Point award per Week.\n\n * Transfers of Points specifically requested by the owner of the\n Points in a message received by the Scorekeepor.\n\n * Transfers of Points from a Group Treasury specifically\n requested by the Vizier of that Group in a message received by\n the Scorekeepor; however, the Vizier is legally responsible for\n ensuring that such a Point transfer is consistent with eir\n Group\'s Ordinances.\n\n * Point changes resulting from end of Game adjustments.\n\n * Point rounding, taxation and \"Welfare\", if mandated by other\n Rules.\n\n * Point changes resulting from a Player joining or leaving the\n Game.\n\n * Point changes resulting from dissolution of a Group.\n\n * Point changes resulting from a premature transfer of\n Speakership.\n\n The Scorekeepor is Legally Responsible for ensuring that the\n above Point changes are performed according to all Rules.\n\n Additional classes of Point changes which are the Scorekeepor\'s\n Legal Responsibility may be defined by other Rules.\n\n'),(496013,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that\n CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it.\n\n When submitting a CFJ, the caller may bar up to three players\n from judging that CFJ.\n\n'),(496014,'zefram',NULL,897,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 897 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496015,'zefram',NULL,900,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 900 by Proposal 900 (Garth), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals that are not proposed Rule Changes are known as\n Decrees.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall maintain a current record of all\n Decrees to Appeal Judgements.\n\n The Ambassador shall maintain a current record of all Foreign\n Policy Directives.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a current record of all other\n Decrees that have a continuing legal effect.\n\n Decrees to Award Titles or Run for Offices need not be recorded.\n\n The Archivist shall maintain a record of all other Decrees.\n\n This Rule applies to Decrees in general, and defers to the Rules\n for specific types of Decrees.\n\n'),(496012,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that\n CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ.\n The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before\n the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\n'),(496011,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5001 (root, Quazie), 12 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the\n Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and\n Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of\n the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that\n CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ.\n The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before\n the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\n'),(496010,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the\n Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and\n Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of\n the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ.\n The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before\n the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\n'),(496008,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n Any Player sharing an Executor with the Caller of a CFJ is\n automatically Barred from Judging that CFJ.\n\n When submitting a CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players\n from Judging that CFJ.\n\n'),(496009,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the\n Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and\n Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of\n the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from\n judging it. The Plantiff may bar one other Player when e submits\n the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging\n any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\n'),(496006,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player who submits a Call for Judgement is permitted to\n specify up to three Players who are to be Barred from Judging\n that CFJ. Any Players that are so Barred are ineligible to\n Judge that CFJ.\n\n'),(496007,'zefram',NULL,897,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), 8 March 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Caller of a CFJ may Bar up to three Players from Judging\n that CFJ.\n\n Any Player whose Executor is the Caller of a CFJ is Barred from\n Judging that CFJ.\n\n Any Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n'),(496005,'zefram',NULL,897,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 897 by Proposal 897 (Garth), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player that Calls For Judgement may Bar up to three Players\n from Judging that Statement. Players that have been Barred\n from a Statement are ineligible to render Judgement on that\n Statement.\n\n'),(496004,'zefram',NULL,894,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 894 by Proposal 894 (Garth), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n New kinds of Rule Changes may be defined by the Rules, so long\n as they Create, Amend, Repeal, Transmute, or otherwise change\n one or more Rules, without making any other direct changes to\n the Game State.\n\n All proposed Rule Changes are Proposals. Other kinds of\n Proposal may be defined by the Rules. They shall be treated as\n proposed Rule Changes in all respects, save that they shall not\n change any Rule in any way, and they shall not under any\n circumstances be incorporated into the Ruleset. A given class\n of such Proposals shall not be valid unless the Rules define\n which Player or Players must maintain a current record of that\n class of Proposals, or explicitly state that that class need not\n be recorded.\n\n The first paragraph of this Rule does not apply to Proposals\n that are not Rule Changes.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules describing the\n nature of Rule Changes and/or proposed Rule Changes.\n\n'),(496002,'zefram',NULL,893,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 893 by Proposal 893 (Nicol), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Newer foreign policy directives take precedence over older ones.\n\n A foreign policy directive may be dropped from the records only\n after it has explicitly been superceded in another foreign\n policy directive.\n\n'),(496003,'zefram',NULL,893,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1467, 8 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Newer foreign policy directives take precedence over older ones.\n\n A foreign policy directive may be dropped from the records\n by Explicit Self-Repeal, or by being explicitly superceded\n by another directive, or by being repealed via another\n directive.\n\n'),(496001,'zefram',NULL,867,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 867 by Proposal 867 (KoJen), 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If there is currently a distributed Proposal X, or a submitted\n but not-yet-distributed Proposal-to-be X, whose effect includes\n the amending or repeal of Rule Y, then no additional Proposals\n whose effect includes the amending or repeal of the same Rule Y\n shall be accepted until the outcome of Proposal X is decided.\n Responsibility of enforcing this is given to the Speaker, who\n shall return such submissions to the sender, as they are not\n properly made proposals.\n\n'),(496000,'zefram',NULL,866,'Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players are urged to \"proto-Propose\" an idea before submitting\n it as an official Proposal. Should the Proposer desire, e may\n decide to proto-Propose it to eir own Group rather than to the\n Public Forum. This is done by Posting the complete Proposal as\n it would be submitted, to all Active members of eir Group,\n adding the prefix \"proto-\" to the word \"PROPOSAL\", at least one\n Week and no more then four Weeks before the Proposal is\n submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not\n required to take into account suggestions by the Group members,\n and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official\n Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2\n Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal.\n The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the\n Voting results.\n\n To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the\n Speaker when and to whom the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and\n what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a \"reasonably\n plausible evolution\" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does\n not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the\n Speaker shall be the Guilty Party.\n (*Was: 866*)\n\n'),(495999,'zefram',NULL,866,'Amended by Proposal 929 (Stella?), 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players are urged to \"proto-Propose\" an idea before submitting\n it as an official Proposal. Should the Proposer desire, e may\n decide to proto-Propose it to eir own Group rather than to the\n Public Forum. This is done by Posting the complete Proposal as\n it would be submitted, to all Active members of eir Group,\n adding the prefix \"proto-\" to the word \"PROPOSAL\", at least one\n Week and no more then four Weeks before the Proposal is\n submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not\n required to take into account suggestions by the Group members,\n and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official\n Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2\n Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal.\n The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the\n Voting results.\n\n To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the\n Speaker when and to whom the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and\n what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a \"reasonably\n plausible evolution\" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does\n not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the\n Speaker shall be the Guilty Party.\n\n'),(495998,'zefram',NULL,866,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 866 by Proposal 866 (KoJen), 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players are urged to \"proto-Propose\" an idea before submitting\n it as an official Proposal. Should the Proposer desire, e may\n decide to proto-Propose it to eir own Group rather than to the\n Public Forum. This is done by Posting the complete Proposal as\n it would be submitted, to all Active members of eir Group,\n adding the prefix \"proto-\" to the word \"PROPOSAL\", at least one\n Week and no more then four Weeks before the Proposal is\n submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not\n required to take into account suggestions by the Group members,\n and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official\n Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2\n Points. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes\n the Proposal.\n\n To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the\n Speaker when and to whom the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and\n what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a \"reasonably\n plausible evolution\" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does\n not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the\n Speaker shall be the Guilty Party.\n\n'),(495997,'zefram',NULL,865,'Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players are urged to \"proto-Propose\" an idea before submitting\n it as an official Proposal. This is done be posting the complete\n Proposal as it would be submitted, to the Public Forum, adding\n the prefix \"proto-\" to the word \"PROPOSAL\", at least one Week\n and no more than four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to\n the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to\n take into account suggestions by the Nomic community, and modify\n the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal.\n When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at\n the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal.\n The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the\n Voting results.\n\n To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the\n Speaker when the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes\n were incorporated. A Proposal must be a \"reasonably plausible\n evolution\" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply.\n In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall\n be the Guilty Party.\n (*Was: 865*)\n\n'),(495994,'zefram',NULL,864,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 864 by Proposal 864 (Dave Bowen), 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Marks created through the passage of the Walrus Rules (Rules\n 818 and 819) shall be destroyed. If any of these Marks have\'\n been converted into points, those points earned shall be\n returned to the Point Reserve.\n\n'),(495995,'zefram',NULL,865,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 865 by Proposal 865 (KoJen), 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players are urged to \"proto-Propose\" an idea before submitting\n it as an official Proposal. This is done be posting the complete\n Proposal as it would be submitted, to the Public Forum, adding\n the prefix \"proto-\" to the word \"PROPOSAL\", at least one Week\n and no more than four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to\n the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to\n take into account suggestions by the Nomic community, and modify\n the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal.\n When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points.\n The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the\n Proposal.\n\n To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the\n Speaker when the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes\n were incorporated. A Proposal must be a \"reasonably plausible\n evolution\" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply.\n In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall\n be the Guilty Party.\n\n'),(495996,'zefram',NULL,865,'Amended by Proposal 928 (Stella?), 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players are urged to \"proto-Propose\" an idea before submitting\n it as an official Proposal. This is done be posting the complete\n Proposal as it would be submitted, to the Public Forum, adding\n the prefix \"proto-\" to the word \"PROPOSAL\", at least one Week\n and no more than four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to\n the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to\n take into account suggestions by the Nomic community, and modify\n the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal.\n When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at\n the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal.\n The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the\n Voting results.\n\n To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the\n Speaker when the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes\n were incorporated. A Proposal must be a \"reasonably plausible\n evolution\" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply.\n In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall\n be the Guilty Party.\n\n'),(495990,'zefram',NULL,861,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 861 by Proposal 861 (Stella?), 17 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic\n or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet.\n The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a\n bonus of five Points.\n\n If another Player than the Ambassador locates such\n a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the\n Ambassador to this Player.\n\n'),(495991,'zefram',NULL,861,'Amended by Proposal 883 (Stella?), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic\n or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet.\n The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a\n bonus of five Points.\n\n If another Player than the Ambassador locates such\n a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the\n Ambassador to this Player.\n\n To qualify for the reward, at least half the Players of such a\n Game should not play already in *this* Nomic Game.\n\n'),(495992,'zefram',NULL,861,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic\n or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet.\n The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a\n bonus of five Points.\n\n If another Player than the Ambassador locates such\n a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the\n Ambassador to this Player.\n\n To qualify for the reward, at least half the Players of such a\n Game should not play already in *this* Nomic Game.\n (*Was: 861*)\n\n'),(495993,'zefram',NULL,862,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 862 by Proposal 862 (Stella?), 17 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Patent Title of Entrepreneur.\n This Title will be awarded to the most enterprizing\n Free Enterprizer.\n The Entrepreneur will be chosen by means of an election\n organized by the Banker, by any means he sees fit.\n Candidates for the Title are Chuck, KoJen, Oerjan and Waggie.\n\n This Rule can only be amended by a Proposal to award the\n Patent Title of Entrepreneur to another Player.\n\n'),(495985,'zefram',NULL,853,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 853 by Proposal 853 (Oerjan), 17 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In order to make an Oath, a Player must send a message\n to at least one other Player, stating the fact that they\n are making an Oath, and what the Oath is.\n\n If someone makes an Oath, e must do that which e has sworn\n to do, as long as it is legal for em to do so.\n\n E who defies this has broken this Rule, and shall also be guilty\n of a Class C Crime.\n\n No rule may force someone to make an Oath;\n this rule takes precedence over all rules that attempt to do so.\n\n'),(495986,'zefram',NULL,855,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 855 by Proposal 855 (Garth), 17 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Marks are a Conserved Quantity. The total number of Marks\n is Public Information.\n\n'),(495987,'zefram',NULL,856,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 856 by Proposal 856 (Garth), 17 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy\n a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as\n many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This\n restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new\n Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new\n Conserved Quantity.\n\n'),(495988,'zefram',NULL,856,'Amended by Proposal 924 (Jason), 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy\n a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as\n many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This\n restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new\n Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new\n Conserved Quantity.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules regarding\n voting.\n\n'),(495989,'zefram',NULL,856,'Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy\n a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as\n many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This\n restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new\n Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new\n Conserved Quantity.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules regarding\n voting.\n (*Was: 856*)\n\n'),(495983,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(18)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each month, the Payroll Clerk shall pay\n out to each Player for the designated Salary for each Office\n that Player has held for a total of at least 12 days in the\n preceding month.\n\n There is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Stems,\n the level of which is set by the Treasuror, as described in\n other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of\n the Basic Salary. The Salary for an Office shall be specified\n in the Treasuror\'s Budget; if an Office\'s Salary is not so\n specified, it is equal to the Basic Salary.\n\n'),(495984,'zefram',NULL,852,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 852 by Proposal 852 (Oerjan), 17 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n It is never a Crime for any Player to perform an action which is\n required of em by the Rules. This Rule takes precedence over any\n Rules defining what is or is not a Crime.\n\n'),(495982,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(15) by Proposal 3802 (Kolja A.), 15 November 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each month, the Registrar shall pay out\n to each Player the designated Salary for each Office that\n Player has held for a total of at least 12 days in the\n preceding month.\n\n There is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Voting\n Tokens, the level of which is set by the Chancellor, as\n described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be\n expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise\n specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic\n Salary.\n\n'),(495980,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(13) by Proposal 3642 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out\n to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that\n Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days\n preceding.\n\n There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT.\n Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the\n Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an\n Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.\n\n'),(495981,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(14) by Proposal 3747 (Steve), 22 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out\n to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that\n Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days\n preceding.\n\n There is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Voting\n Tokens, the level of which is set by the Chancellor, as\n described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be\n expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise\n specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic\n Salary.\n\n'),(495979,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(12) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out\n to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that\n Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days\n preceding.\n\n If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to\n publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, then no payment\n of Salary shall be made in a given Nomic Week if that document\n was not distributed in the previous Week.\n\n There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT.\n Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the\n Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an\n Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.\n\n'),(495978,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(11) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive\n the designated Salary for each Office e has held without\n interruption for the entire five days preceding.\n\n If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer\n to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week,\n that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if\n that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.\n\n The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT.\n Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the\n Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an\n Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.\n\n'),(495977,'zefram',NULL,849,'Null-Amended(10) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive\n the designated Salary for each Office e has held without\n interruption for the entire five days preceding.\n\n If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer\n to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week,\n that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if\n that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.\n\n The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 10\n Marks. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the\n Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an\n Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.\n\n'),(495973,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2560, 6 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive\n the designated salaries for the Office(s) e holds, provided that\n e has held them for the entire five days preceding without\n interruption.\n\n If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer\n to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week,\n that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if\n that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.\n\n The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3\n Points.\n\n'),(495974,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2618, 9 June 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive\n the designated Salary for each Office e has held without\n interruption for the entire five days preceding.\n\n If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer\n to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week,\n that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if\n that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.\n\n The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3\n Points.\n\n'),(495975,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive\n the designated Salary for each Office e has held without\n interruption for the entire five days preceding.\n\n If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer\n to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week,\n that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if\n that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.\n\n The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3\n Mils.\n\n'),(495976,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(9) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive\n the designated Salary for each Office e has held without\n interruption for the entire five days preceding.\n\n If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer\n to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week,\n that Officer\'s Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if\n that document has not been distributed in the previous Week.\n\n The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 10\n Marks. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the\n Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an\n Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary.\n\n'),(495972,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive\n the designated salaries for the Office(s) e holds, provided that\n e has held them for the entire five days preceding without\n interruption. The Registrar shall detect and report all\n transfer resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3\n Points.\n\n'),(495970,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an\n Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office\n which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.\n\n The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3\n Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain\n this sentence.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers resultng\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n'),(495971,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an\n Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office\n which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.\n\n The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3\n Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain\n this sentence.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers resulting\n from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries.\n\n'),(495967,'zefram',NULL,849,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1582, 15 May 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an\n Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office\n which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.\n\n The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3\n Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.\n\n'),(495968,'zefram',NULL,849,'Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 28 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an\n Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office\n which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.\n\n The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3\n Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain\n this sentence.\n\n'),(495969,'zefram',NULL,849,'Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 28 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an\n Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office\n which e has filled continuously for the previous five days.\n\n The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3\n Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495963,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(11) Cosmetically by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has\n submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately\n preceding Week is the Infraction of Excess Proposing, the\n penalty for which is one Mil. This Infraction shall be detected\n and reported by the Promotor.\n\n'),(495964,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(12) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has\n submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately\n preceding Week is the Infraction of Excess Proposing, the\n penalty for which is 0.5 VT. This Infraction shall be detected\n and reported by the Promotor.\n\n'),(495965,'zefram',NULL,843,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1065 by Proposal 3724 (Chuck), 16 April 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495966,'zefram',NULL,849,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 849 by Proposal 849 (Garth), 17 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Officers (excluding Viziers, Ordinancekeepors, and any other\n Officers whose duties pertain only to a single Group) shall\n receive a salary of 3 Points per week.\n\n This Rule applies to Offices in general, and defers to the Rules\n for specific Offices.\n\n'),(495958,'zefram',NULL,843,'Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 1763, 31 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for\n each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that\n Player during the current Nomic Week.\n\n The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than\n the time the Proposal is distributed.\n\n'),(495959,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2054, 19 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for\n each Proposal, in excess of five, previously submitted by that\n Player during the current Nomic Week.\n\n The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than\n the time the Proposal is distributed.\n\n'),(495960,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2522, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Proposing Entity submits a Proposal, it shall lose 1\n Mark for each Proposal, in excess of five, previously submitted\n by that Proposing Entity during the current Nomic Week.\n\n The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than\n the time the Proposal is distributed.\n\n'),(495961,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(9) by Proposal 2691, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has\n submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately\n preceding Week is an Infraction, the penalty for which is one\n Mil. This Infraction shall be reported by the Promotor.\n\n'),(495962,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(10) by Proposal 2712, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has\n submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately\n preceding Week is an Infraction, the penalty for which is one\n Mil. This Infraction shall be detected and reported by the\n Promotor.\n\n'),(495956,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1693, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for\n each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that\n Player within the past seven (7) days.\n\n The Promotor is responsible for reporting this transfer to the\n Banker, and the Promotor shall report it no later than the time\n at which the Proposal is distributed.\n\n No Transfer shall occur as a result of this Rule whenever\n whenever the number of Proposals currently up for Vote plus the\n number of Proposals received by the Promotor but not yet\n distributed is not more than 12.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, multiple Proposals in the same\n message shall be considered to have been sent to the Promotor\n separated by infinitesimal increments of time.\n\n'),(495957,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1750, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for\n each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that\n Player during the current Nomic Week.\n\n The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than\n the time the Proposal is distributed.\n\n'),(495953,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended by Rule 750, 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a player submits a Proposal to the Speaker, e shall lose 1\n point for each Proposal proposed by em which either is currently\n up for Vote, or has been sent to the Speaker but not yet\n distributed.\n\n The Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to\n the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker shall report it no later than\n the time at which the proposal is distributed.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same\n message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker\n separated by infinitesimal increments of time.\n\n If at any time after the adoption of this Rule there exists a\n Nomic entity known as the Point Sucker:\n --the \"1 point\" in the first paragraph shall be amended to\n \"0.1 Marks\"\n --the \"Scorekeepor\" in the second paragraph shall be amended\n to \"Banker\"\n --this paragraph shall then be deleted from this Rule.\n (*Was: 843*)\n\n'),(495954,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1270, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose one (1) point for\n each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that\n Player within the past seven (7) days.\n\n The Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to\n the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker shall report it no later than\n the time at which the proposal is distributed.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same\n message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker\n separated by infinitesimal increments of time.\n (*Was: 843/936*)\n\n'),(495955,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1530, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose one (1) point for\n each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that\n Player within the past seven (7) days.\n\n The Promotor is responsible for reporting this point change to\n the Scorekeepor, and the Promotor shall report it no later than\n the time at which the proposal is distributed.\n\n This Rule shall have no effect on Points whenever the number of\n Proposals currently up for Vote plus the number of Proposals\n received by the Speaker but not yet distributed is not more than\n 12.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same\n message shall be considered to have been sent to the Promotor\n separated by infinitesimal increments of time.\n (*Was: 843/936*)\n\n'),(495951,'zefram',NULL,843,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 843 by Proposal 843 (KoJen), 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Player may send more than PL/2 Proposals to the Speaker\n during any given Week. Proposals in excess of this number are\n rejected by the Speaker, as they are not \"made in the proper\n manner\". A 2 Point penalty is assessed by the Speaker for every\n Proposal submitted in excess of this number; responsibility for\n enforcement is given to the Speaker.\n\n'),(495952,'zefram',NULL,843,'Amended by Proposal 936 (Chuck), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a player submits a Proposal to the Speaker, e shall lose 1\n point for each Proposal proposed by em which either is currently\n up for Vote, or has been sent to the Speaker but not yet\n distributed.\n\n The Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to\n the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker shall report it no later than\n the time at which the proposal is distributed.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same\n message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker\n separated by infinitesimal increments of time.\n\n If at any time after the adoption of this Rule there exists a\n Nomic entity known as the Point Sucker:\n --the \"1 point\" in the first paragraph shall be amended to\n \"0.1 Marks\"\n --the \"Scorekeepor\" in the second paragraph shall be amended\n to \"Banker\"\n --this paragraph shall then be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495948,'zefram',NULL,840,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2494, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as the \"Scamster\". This is\n awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence,\n or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This Title is awarded in\n the normal manner for Patent Titles, and may never be retracted.\n\n At the time the Title is awarded, 1 Mark shall be transferred\n from the new Scamster to the Bank. This transfer shall be\n reported by the Registrar, as soon as possible after it occurs.\n\n The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined.\n\n'),(495949,'zefram',NULL,840,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as the \"Scamster\". This is\n awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence,\n or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This Title is awarded in\n the normal manner for Patent Titles, and may never be retracted.\n\n The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined.\n\n'),(495950,'zefram',NULL,842,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 842 by Proposal 842 (KoJen), 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as \"Most Titled\". This Title\n is to be given to the Player who has the largest number of\n Patent Titles. The Registrar is charged with keeping track of\n this and announcing when the Most Titled Player changes.\n\n'),(495944,'zefram',NULL,840,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1372, 5 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as the \"Scamster\". This is\n awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence,\n or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by\n Proposal and once awarded is permanent.\n\n A Scamster loses 1 Point upon receiving the Title. The Patent\n Title may not be declined.\n\n'),(495945,'zefram',NULL,840,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1688, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as the \"Scamster\". This is\n awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence,\n or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by\n Proposal and once awarded is permanent.\n\n Upon receiving the title, 0.01 Mark shall be transferred from\n the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not\n be declined.\n\n'),(495946,'zefram',NULL,840,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1716, 12 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as the \"Scamster\". This is\n awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence,\n or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by\n Proposal and once awarded is permanent.\n\n Upon receiving the title, 1 Mark shall be transferred from\n the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not\n be declined.\n\n'),(495947,'zefram',NULL,840,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as the \"Scamster\". This is\n awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence,\n or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This title is awarded by\n Proposal and once awarded is permanent.\n\n Upon receiving the title, 1 Mark shall be transferred from\n the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not\n be declined.\n\n'),(495942,'zefram',NULL,839,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be\n responsible for collecting those messages which are official in\n nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited\n into a single digest post.\n\n The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them\n available upon request to any entity, including those Players on\n Hold. This Rule shall take precedence over all other Rules\n regarding communication with Players on Hold.\n\n'),(495943,'zefram',NULL,840,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 840 by Proposal 840 (KoJen), 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Patent Title known as the \"Scamster\". This is\n awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence,\n or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by\n Proposal and once awarded is permanent.\n\n A Scamster must pay a one-time fee of 1 Point to the Point\n Reserve upon receiving the Title. This fee is not optional, and\n the Patent Title may not be declined.\n\n'),(495938,'zefram',NULL,833,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3761 (Steve), 28 June 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the beginning of the Nomic Week,\n the Assessor shall pay out two Proposal Notes to each Player\n who submitted an Interested Proposal which was adopted during\n the previous Week.\n\n'),(495939,'zefram',NULL,839,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 839 by Proposal 839 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be\n responsible for collecting those messages which are official in\n nature from the Speaker ad Officers. Messages are to be edited\n into a single digest post.\n\n The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them\n available upon request to any entity, including those Players on\n Hold. This Rule shall take precidence over all other Rules\n regarding commuication with Players on Hold.\n\n'),(495940,'zefram',NULL,839,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1644, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be\n responsible for collecting those messages which are official in\n nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited\n into a single digest post.\n\n The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them\n available upon request to any entity, including those Players on\n Hold. This Rule shall take precidence over all other Rules\n regarding commuication with Players on Hold.\n\n'),(495941,'zefram',NULL,839,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be\n responsible for collecting those messages which are official in\n nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited\n into a single digest post.\n\n The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them\n available upon request to any entity, including those Players on\n Hold. This Rule shall take precedence over all other Rules\n regarding commuication with Players on Hold.\n\n'),(495936,'zefram',NULL,833,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), 12 February 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the beginning of the Nomic Week,\n the Assessor shall pay out two Voting Tokens to each Player\n who submitted an Interested Proposal which was adopted during\n the previous Week.\n\n'),(495937,'zefram',NULL,833,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3720 (Steve), 16 April 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after an Interested Proposal submitted by a\n Player is adopted, the Assessor shall pay out two Voting Tokens\n to that Player, with the proviso that no more than one such\n payment shall be made to any Player under the authority of this\n Rule for adopted Proposals distributed at the same time.\n\n'),(495935,'zefram',NULL,833,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The entity which paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal\n shall be known as the Sponsor of that Proposal.\n\n At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal\n has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Assessor\n shall pay out to the Sponsor a number of P-Notes equal to the\n number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes.\n\n If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR\n Votes, the Assessor shall bill the Sponsor for a number of\n P-Notes equal the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR\n Votes.\n\n If the Sponsor and the Proposer of a Proposal are not the same\n entity and the Proposal passes, the Assessor shall pay out 2\n P-Notes to the Proposer. If the Sponsor and the Proposer of a\n Proposal are not the same and the Proposal fails, the Assessor\n shall bill the Proposer 1 P-Note. This is in addition to any\n other payments required by this or other Rules.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are\n not Players do not count.\n\n The Assessor shall execute all Payment Orders required by this\n Rule no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of\n the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495931,'zefram',NULL,824,'Repealed as Mutable Rule 824 by Proposal 959 (Garth), 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495932,'zefram',NULL,825,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 825 by Proposal 825 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals may affect the game when the effect/s is based on\n votes or activities before the passage of said Proposal only if\n said Proposal was passed unanimously.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Proposals that are passed without\n receiving any AGAINST votes are considered to be unanimous.\n\n'),(495933,'zefram',NULL,825,'Repealed as Mutable Rule 825 by Proposal 950 (Stella?), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495934,'zefram',NULL,833,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 1704 by Proposal 3474 (Swann), 2 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player who paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal\n shall be known as the Payor for that Proposal. If a\n non-Player Entity paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal\n the Payor shall be the Executor of that Entity.\n\n At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal\n has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Payor for\n that Proposal gains a number of P-Notes equal to the number of\n FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes.\n\n If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR\n Votes, that Payor loses a number of P-Notes equal the number of\n AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes.\n\n If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the\n Payor neither gains nor loses P-Notes as a result of this\n Rule.\n\n If the Payor is not the same Player as the Player who made the\n Proposal, then the Player who made the Proposal shall receive 2\n P-Notes if the Proposal passes, and lose 1 P-Note if the\n Proposal fails. This only happens in the given case, and occurs\n in addition to any other transfers mandated by this or other\n Rules.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are\n not Players do not count.\n\n The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule,\n and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495926,'zefram',NULL,822,'Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player\n into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a\n proposal is considered not to be \"proposed in the proper way\".\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would\n otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.\n (*Was: 822*)\n\n'),(495927,'zefram',NULL,822,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 4 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player\n into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a\n proposal is considered not to be \"proposed in the proper way\".\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would\n otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.\n (*Was: 822*)\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495928,'zefram',NULL,822,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1623, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player\n into voting against eir conscience shall not take effect even if\n adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n'),(495929,'zefram',NULL,822,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1003 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495930,'zefram',NULL,824,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 824 by Proposal 824 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let all Players be able to buy points with eir Marks from the\n Bank in a ratio of 20 points to 1 Mark. Points will be received\n from the Point Reserve for such transactions.\n\n For such a transaction to be valid the Player must communicate\n to the Banker that a point purchase is desired. The player must\n transfer only whole Mark amounts for such a transfer. The\n Banker will inform the Scorekeepor of transfer and the amount of\n points the Player is to receive from the Point Reserve. The\n Scorekeepor shall make the transaction public knowledge.\n\n'),(495922,'zefram',NULL,819,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 819 by Proposal 819 (Waggie), 14 February 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n 10^(-100) seconds after this Proposal is passed into Rule, the\n following shall take place:\n -for each Happy Walrus, 5 Marks will be created and given to\n the Player or Group which owns that Happy Walrus;\n -for each Sad Walrus, the Player or Group which owns that Sad\n Walrus will have 50 Points subtracted from their Score or\n Treasury;\n -after the above actions have taken place, all Walruses will be\n destroyed;\n -after the above actions have taken place, this Rule repeals\n itself and is removed from the RuleSet.\n\n'),(495923,'zefram',NULL,819,'Repealed as Mutable Rule 819 by Rule 819, 14 February 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495924,'zefram',NULL,822,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 822 by Proposal 822 (KoJen), 14 February 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player\n into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. For the\n purpose of Rule 106 or its successors, such a proposal is\n considered not to be \"proposed in the proper way\".\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would\n otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.\n\n'),(495925,'zefram',NULL,822,'Amended by Proposal 1003, ca. Aug. 25 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player\n into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a\n proposal is considered not to be \"proposed in the proper way\".\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would\n otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.\n\n'),(495920,'zefram',NULL,818,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 818 by Proposal 818 (Waggie), 14 February 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a type of Nomic Entity called a Walrus.\n Walruses are not a form of Currency; they may be owned by\n Players or Groups, but they may not be bought, sold, traded,\n or owed. Walruses may be created or destroyed only in accordance\n with the Rules. Each Walrus is either Happy or Sad, but not\n both; a Happy Walrus nay never become a Sad Walrus, and a Sad\n Walrus may never become a Happy Walrus. It is the duty of the\n Registrar to keep a record of the number of Happy and/or Sad\n Walruses owned by each Player or Group.\n\n Immediately upon the passage of this Proposal the following shall\n take place:\n -for each Voter who Voted FOR both this Proposal and Proposal\n 819, a Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter;\n -for each Voter who contributed at least 2 Points to each of the\n FOR Caches of the Vototron for both this Proposal and Proposal\n 819, one Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter;\n -for each Member of PROSIRUP, one Happy Walrus will be created\n belonging to that Player;\n -three Happy Walruses will be created belonging to Waggie;\n -three Happy Walruses will be created belonging to the Abelian\n Group;\n -for each Voter who did not Vote on either this Proposal or\n Proposal 819 a Sad Walrus will be created belonging to that\n Voter;\n -for each Voter who Voted AGAINST or ABSTAIN on either this\n Proposal or Proposal 819 three Sad Walruses will be created\n belonging to that Voter;\n -for each Voter who contributed at least 0.1 Point to either of\n the AGAINST Caches of the Vototron for this Proposal and Proposal\n 819, one Sad Walrus will be created and given to that Voter for\n each tenth of a Point spent thusly;\n -for each Group which Voted on either this Proposal or Proposal\n 819, one Walrus will be created and given to that Group for\n each Vote which was cast; the Walrus will be Happy if the Vote\n was FOR, and the Walrus will be Sad if the Vote was AGAINST\n or ABSTAIN.\n\n At any time after the creation of at least one Walrus, if there\n cease to be any Walruses in existence then this Rule repeals\n itself and is removed from the RuleSet.\n\n'),(495921,'zefram',NULL,818,'Repealed as Mutable Rule 818 by Rule 818, 14 February 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495917,'zefram',NULL,807,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1620, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if\n adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than\n changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those\n Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a\n Proposal.\n\n If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives\n shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal,\n and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each\n Directive in question.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be\n at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which\n define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. If this\n is not true, then the Directive shall not take effect, even if\n the Proposal is adopted.\n\n'),(495918,'zefram',NULL,807,'Infected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, 21 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if\n adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than\n changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those\n Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a\n Proposal.\n\n If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives\n shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal,\n and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each\n Directive in question.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be\n at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which\n define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. If this\n is not true, then the Directive shall not take effect, even if\n the Proposal is adopted.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495919,'zefram',NULL,807,'Amended(???) by Proposal 2399, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is permitted to contain one or more Directives. A\n Directive, if it takes effect, causes some change in the Game\n State other than Changing a Rule. No Directive shall Change\n any Rule.\n\n A Directive takes effect if and only if: (i) the Proposal\n containing it is adopted; (ii) the Directive is of a type\n specifically defined by the Rules; and, (iii) the Adoption Index\n of the Proposal is at least the minimum Adoption Index necessary\n for such a Directive to take effect.\n\n Unless another Rule states otherwise, the minimum Adoption Index\n necessary for a Directive to take effect is 1.\n\n If a Proposal containing Directives which take effect is\n adopted, those Directives shall take effect in the order that\n they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rules\n which define the type of each Directive in question.\n\n'),(495912,'zefram',NULL,806,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1510, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n While an Office is vacant, and until it is filled as provided in\n other rules, the Speaker shall fulfill the duties of that\n Office. The Speaker may delegate those duties to a willing\n Player if e desires. The Player fulfilling the duties of that\n Office is compensated in the same manner as if e actually\n held that Office.\n\n This Rule applies to Offices in general, and defers to the Rules\n for specific Offices.\n\n'),(495913,'zefram',NULL,807,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 807 by Proposal 807',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. The\n permissible forms of Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC\n Proposals), and the Declarations needed to propose them, shall\n be defined in other legislation.\n\n NRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other\n Proposals, and shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals.\n Upon the Adoption of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with\n results as described in the Rule or Rules that define the form\n of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495914,'zefram',NULL,807,'Amended by Proposal 891 (Chuck), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. All\n proposals, except those which have one of the following\n declarations:\n (Creates a Rule)\n (Amends a Rule)\n (Repeals a Rule)\n (Transmutes a Rule)\n are Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals). However,\n only those NRC Proposals defined in other Rules may\n be proposed.\n\n NRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other\n Proposals, and shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals.\n Upon the Adoption of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with\n results as described in the Rule or Rules that define the form\n of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495915,'zefram',NULL,807,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. All\n proposals, except those which have one of the following\n declarations:\n (Creates a Rule)\n (Amends a Rule)\n (Repeals a Rule)\n (Transmutes a Rule)\n are Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals). However,\n only those NRC Proposals defined in other Rules may\n be proposed.\n\n NRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other\n Proposals, and shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals.\n Upon the Adoption of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with\n results as described in the Rule or Rules that define the form\n of the Proposal in question.\n (*Was: 807*)\n\n'),(495916,'zefram',NULL,807,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if\n adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than\n changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those\n Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a\n Proposal.\n\n If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives\n shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal,\n and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each\n Directive in question.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be\n at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which\n define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any\n Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made.\n\n'),(495911,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\n'),(495910,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" means \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\n'),(495909,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The term \"number\" means \"real number\".\n\n (b) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" means \"within seven days\".\n\n (c) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (d) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\n'),(495908,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The term \"number\" means \"real number\".\n\n (b) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" means \"within seven days\".\n\n (c) The term \"random\" means a choice drawn with a process whose\n probability distribution among the possible outcomes is\n reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n (d) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (e) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\n'),(495907,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The term \"number\" shall mean \"real number\".\n\n (b) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" shall mean \"within seven\n days\".\n\n (c) The term \"random\" shall mean a choice drawn with a process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n (d) The term \"paragraph\" shall mean a subset of text determined\n as follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (e) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\n'),(495905,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following terms are defined:\n\n - Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at\n midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT\n on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters\n begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and\n October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of\n January begins.\n\n - A requirement to perform an action \"as soon as possible\" is a\n requirement to perform the action within seven days.\n\n - The term \"number\" shall be interpreted as \"real number\".\n\n - The term \"random\" shall mean a choice drawn with a process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is\n reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n'),(495906,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The term \"number\" shall mean \"real number\".\n\n (b) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" shall mean \"within seven\n days\".\n\n (c) The term \"random\" shall mean a choice drawn with a process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n (d) The term \"paragraph\" shall mean a subset of text determined\n as follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Units are considered in a tree hierarchy, interpreting\n the original body of text as a depth-first search. The\n root is empty, the unbulleted units are its children,\n and the bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are\n its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to\n nested levels of the tree).\n\n (4) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (e) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\n'),(495904,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A requirement to perform an action \"as soon as possible\" is a\n requirement to perform the action within a week.\n\n If a Player fails to observe such a requirement, and no other\n Rule defines a penalty for the failure, then the Player commits\n the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness, which may be reported by\n any Player.\n\n This Rule does not prevent late actions from taking effect, but\n merely penalizes the Player for being late.\n\n Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to\n non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.\n\n'),(495903,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform an action \"as soon\n as possible\", then e is required to perform the action within\n a week.\n\n A Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the\n Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a penalty.\n\n Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to\n non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.\n\n'),(495902,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform an action \"as soon\n as possible\", then e is required to perform the action within\n a week.\n\n A Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the\n Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a penalty.\n\n Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to\n Inactive Players without conflicting with this Rule.\n\n'),(495901,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), 8 December 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no earlier than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office already requires em to perform as soon as\n possible;\n\n otherwise, e is required to perform that action within a\n week, and no earlier than any other action e is already\n required to perform as soon as possible which is not an\n action performed in the course of carrying out Official\n duties.\n\n A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the\n Class 2 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the\n ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times.\n\n Other Rules may impose different requirements on the timing of\n Official Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players.\n\n'),(495900,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no earlier than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office already requires em to perform as soon as\n possible;\n\n otherwise, e is required to perform that action within a\n week, and no earlier than any other action e is already\n required to perform as soon as possible which is not an\n action performed in the course of carrying out Official\n duties.\n\n A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the\n Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the\n same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the\n ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different\n requirements on the timing of Official Duties.\n\n'),(495899,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no earlier than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office already requires em to perform as soon as\n possible;\n\n otherwise,\n\n (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week,\n and no earlier than any other action e is already\n required to perform as soon as possible which is not an\n action performed in the course of carrying out Official\n duties.\n\n A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the\n Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the\n same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the\n ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different\n requirements on the timing of Official Duties.\n\n'),(495898,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), 19 December 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no earlier than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office already requires em to perform as soon as\n possible;\n\n otherwise,\n\n (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week,\n and no earlier than any other action e is already\n required to perform as soon as possible which is not an\n action performed in the course of carrying out Official\n duties.\n\n A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the\n the Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the\n same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the\n ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different\n requirements on the timing of Official Duties.\n\n'),(495897,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2629, 4 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no earlier than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office already requires em to perform as soon as\n possible;\n\n otherwise,\n\n (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week,\n and no earlier than any other action e is already\n required to perform as soon as possible which is not an\n action performed in the course of carrying out Official\n duties.\n\n A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the\n Crime of Tardiness, a Class D Crime. However, activity of a\n purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering\n requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different\n requirements on the timing of Official Duties.\n\n'),(495896,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2567, 12 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no earlier than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office already requires em to perform as soon as\n possible;\n\n otherwise,\n\n (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week,\n and no earlier than any other action e is already\n required to perform as soon as possible which is not an\n action performed in the course of carrying out Official\n duties.\n\n Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime.\n However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded\n from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different\n requirements on the timing of Official Duties.\n\n'),(495895,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2489, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no earlier than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office already requires em to perform as soon as\n possible;\n\n otherwise,\n\n (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week,\n and no earlier than any other action e is already\n required to perform as soon as possible which is not an\n action performed in the course of carrying out Official\n duties.\n\n Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime.\n However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded\n from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold.\n\n'),(495894,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no later than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office subsequently requires em to perform;\n\n otherwise,\n\n (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week,\n and no later than any other action e is subsequently\n required to perform which is not an action performed\n in the course of carrying out Official duties.\n\n Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime.\n However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded\n from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold.\n\n'),(495893,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, 6 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", then:\n\n (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to\n perform in the course of carrying out Official\n duties, then the Player is required to perform the\n action within a week, and no later than any other\n action which the performance of the duties of that\n Office subsequently requires em to perform;\n\n otherwise,\n\n (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week,\n and no later than any other action e is subsequently\n required to perform which is not an action performed\n in the course of carrying out Official duties.\n\n Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime.\n However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded\n from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold.\n (*Was: 805/907*)\n\n'),(495892,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", e is required to perform that action\n within a week, and no later than any other action e is\n subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time\n requirements shall be a Class D Crime. However, activity of a\n purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering\n requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold.\n (*Was: 805/907*)\n\n'),(495891,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, 14 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", e is required to perform that action\n within a week, and no later than any other action e is\n subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time\n requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10\n point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties.\n However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded\n from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold.\n (*Was: 805/907*)\n\n'),(495890,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended by Rule 750, 5 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", e is required to perform that action\n within a week, and no later than any other action e is\n subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time\n requirements is a Class C Crime. However, activity of a purely\n discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement,\n and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold.\n (*Was: 805/907*)\n\n'),(495889,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended by Proposal 1023, 5 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action\n \"as soon as possible\", e is required to perform that action\n within a week, and no later than any other action e is\n subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time\n requirements is a Class C Crime. However, activity of a purely\n discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement,\n and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which\n define a later latest time for the performance of these actions.\n Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this\n Rule defers to them.\n\n This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of\n Players who are On Hold.\n (*Was: 805*)\n\n'),(495888,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action \"as\n soon as possible\", e is required to perform this action before\n performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined\n time requirement. However, activity of a purely discussionary\n nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be\n conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate a\n less stringent ordering requirement for the performance of these\n actions.\n (*Was: 805*)\n\n'),(495884,'zefram',NULL,789,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 789 by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495885,'zefram',NULL,792,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 935 (Chuck), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495886,'zefram',NULL,805,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 805 by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action \"as\n soon as possible\", e is required to perform this action before\n performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined\n time requirement. However, email correspondence of a purely\n discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement,\n and may be conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate a\n less stringent ordering requirement for the performance of these\n actions.\n\n'),(495887,'zefram',NULL,805,'Amended by Proposal 907 (Nicol), 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action \"as\n soon as possible\", e is required to perform this action before\n performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined\n time requirement. However, activity of a purely discussionary\n nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be\n conducted at any time.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate a\n less stringent ordering requirement for the performance of these\n actions.\n\n'),(495882,'zefram',NULL,789,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ.\n Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of\n that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule\n is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the\n original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The\n Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without\n Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way\n except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n'),(495883,'zefram',NULL,789,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4917 (Zefram), 2 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE\n or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the\n Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If the\n CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement\n of the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation\n shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such an\n annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule\n is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the\n original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The\n Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without\n Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way\n except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n'),(495881,'zefram',NULL,789,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), 22 July 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ.\n Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of\n that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that\n Rule is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order;\n or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or\n vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate\n a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be\n modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n'),(495880,'zefram',NULL,789,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ.\n Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of\n that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule\n is repealed, or when required to do so by a valid Order.\n Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as\n specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n'),(495879,'zefram',NULL,789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2684, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A CFJ alleging a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way\n must be accompanied by a list of relevant Rules, assembled by\n the Caller, which includes the Rule being interpreted.\n\n If the Judge finds this CFJ\'s Statement TRUE, e is permitted to\n issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the\n Rule in question with that Statement and the list of relevant\n Rules. This annotation, while it exists, shall guide\n application of that Rule.\n\n The annotation is removed once any change occurs in a Rule from\n the list of relevant Rules.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances leading to the\n Judgement no longer prevail, rendering the annotation\n inapplicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged\n TRUE, the annotation is removed.\n\n'),(495878,'zefram',NULL,789,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be\n interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of\n Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in\n question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may\n include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ\n and the list of relevant Rules.\n\n The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the\n list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ\n determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described\n below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that\n Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the\n Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no\n longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is\n Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set.\n\n'),(495877,'zefram',NULL,789,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, 29 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be\n interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of\n Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in\n question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may\n include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ\n and the list of relevant Rules.\n\n The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the\n list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ\n determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described\n below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that\n Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the\n Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no\n longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is\n Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set.\n\n'),(495875,'zefram',NULL,781,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 908 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495876,'zefram',NULL,789,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 789 by Proposal 789 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be\n interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of\n Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in\n question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may\n include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ\n and the list of relevant Rules.\n\n The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules\n in the list of relevant Rules is amended, repealed, or\n transmuted; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no\n longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall\n guide the application of that Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the\n Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no\n longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is\n Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set.\n\n'),(495874,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A sentencing order may require a defendant (hereafter the Ninny)\n to publish a Formal Apology.\n\n A Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain\n the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for\n self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may\n include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of\n which must appear in the Formal Apology.\n\n A defendant must obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours of\n its execution.\n\n'),(495873,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player (hereafter the Ninny) is convicted of a Crime, then\n instead of executing Sentencing Orders, the Judge may (Without\n Objection) Order the Ninny to publish a Formal Apology. Such an\n Order is known as an Order to Apologize.\n\n A Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain\n the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for\n self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may\n include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of\n which must appear in the Formal Apology.\n\n Failure to obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours is the\n Class 3 Infraction of Shamelessness, to be reported by the Judge\n who issued the Order.\n\n'),(495872,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges\n that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed\n to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules\n is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player\n to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is\n Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties\n by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then\n the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the\n Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement.\n\n A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200\n words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s\n error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.\n\n The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include\n in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen\n by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If\n the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words\n required must appear within the Formal Apology.\n\n The failure to abide by an Order to Submit a Formal Apology is\n the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, to be reported\n by the Judge who issued the original Order.\n\n'),(495871,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges\n that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed\n to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules\n is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player\n to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is\n Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties\n by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then\n the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the\n Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement.\n\n A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200\n words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s\n error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.\n\n The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include\n in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen\n by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If\n the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words\n required must appear within the Formal Apology.\n\n'),(495870,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon a judicial finding that a Player (herein called the Ninny)\n has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, the Judge so finding shall Order\n that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology.\n However, when the action (or failure to act) is subject to\n penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an\n Infraction, the Order is optional and may be issued at the\n Judge\'s discretion.\n\n A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200\n words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s\n error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.\n\n The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include\n in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen\n by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If\n the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words\n required must appear within the Formal Apology.\n\n'),(495869,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon a judicial finding that a Player (herein called the Ninny)\n has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, the Judge so finding shall Order\n that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology.\n However, when the action (or failure to act) is subject to\n penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an\n Infraction, the Order is optional and may be issued at the\n Judge\'s discretion.\n\n A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200\n words, to be published by the Ninny in the Public Forum,\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include\n in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen\n by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If\n the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words\n required must appear within the Formal Apology.\n\n'),(495867,'zefram',NULL,781,'Infected and Amended(9) Substantially by Rule 1454, 11 November 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more\n Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit\n to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the\n publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully\n appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Herald any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495868,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(10) Substantially by Rule 908, 25 November 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more\n Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit\n to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the\n publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully\n appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Herald any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n'),(495866,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more\n Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit\n to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the\n publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully\n appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Herald any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n'),(494889,'zefram',NULL,101,'Initial Immutable Rule 101, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Players must always abide by all the Rules then in effect,\n in the form in which they are then in effect. The Rules in the\n Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game.\n The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (Immutable) and\n 201-219 (Mutable).\n\n'),(494890,'zefram',NULL,101,'Initial Immutable Rule 101, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect,\n in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the\n Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game.\n The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and\n 201-219 (mutable).\n\n'),(494891,'zefram',NULL,101,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), 27 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Players must always abide by all the Rules currently in\n effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect.\n However, a Player besides the Speaker may always deregister\n rather than continue to play.\n\n Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is\n permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing\n the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or\n implicitly permit it. Any change to the game state which would\n make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the Rules\n by any combination of actions by Players does not occur, any\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n The Rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of\n the first game. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116\n (Immutable) and 201-219 (Mutable).\n\n'),(494892,'zefram',NULL,101,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not\n regulated. An action is regulated if:\n\n (a) the action is prohibited;\n\n (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,\n then some player is permitted to perform the action;\n\n (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information\n for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor;\n\n (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible\n to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any\n combinations of actions by players; or\n\n (e) the courts have held that the action is regulated, and this\n finding has not been overturned.\n\n A player besides the Speaker is always permitted to deregister\n rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good\n forever.\n\n'),(494893,'zefram',NULL,101,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absense of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absense of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to view.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to\n deregister rather than continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n'),(494894,'zefram',NULL,101,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absense of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absense of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to\n deregister rather than continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n'),(494895,'zefram',NULL,101,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to\n deregister rather than continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n'),(494896,'zefram',NULL,101,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n'),(494897,'zefram',NULL,101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n'),(494898,'zefram',NULL,102,'Initial Immutable Rule 102, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Initially Rules in the 100\'s are Immutable and Rules in the\n 200\'s are Mutable. Rules subsequently Enacted or Transmuted\n (that is, changed from Immutable to Mutable or vice versa) may\n be Immutable or Mutable regardless of their Numbers, and Rules\n in the Initial Set may be Transmuted regardless of their Numbers.\n\n'),(494899,'zefram',NULL,102,'Initial Immutable Rule 102, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Initially rules in the 100\'s are immutable and rules in the\n 200\'s are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted\n (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may\n be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules\n in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers.\n\n'),(494900,'zefram',NULL,103,'Initial Immutable Rule 103, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, each Player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker;\n no Player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any\n time, there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term \"Player\" in\n the Rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the\n Speaker.\n\n'),(494901,'zefram',NULL,103,'Initial Immutable Rule 103, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, each Player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no\n Player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time, there\n shall be exactly one Speaker. The term \"Player\" in the Rules shall\n specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker.\n\n'),(494902,'zefram',NULL,103,'Initial Immutable Rule 103, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no\n player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time\n there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term \"player\" in the rules\n shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker.\n\n'),(494903,'zefram',NULL,103,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, there is exactly one Player who is the Speaker. The\n Speaker may not deregister or be deregistered for any reason,\n any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n'),(494904,'zefram',NULL,103,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker.\n No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never\n be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then\n the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes\n the Speaker.\n\n'),(494905,'zefram',NULL,103,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\n'),(494906,'zefram',NULL,103,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\n'),(494907,'zefram',NULL,104,'Initial Immutable Rule 104, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n'),(494908,'zefram',NULL,105,'Initial Immutable Rule 105, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule Change is any of the following: (1) the enactment,\n repeal, or amendment of a mutable Rule; or (2) the transmutation\n of an immutable Rule into a mutable Rule or vice versa.\n (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all\n new Rules are Mutable; Immutable Rules, as long as they are\n Immutable, may not be Amended or Repealed; Mutable Rules, as long\n as they are Mutable, may be Amended or Repealed; any Rule of any\n status may be Transmuted; no Rule is absolutely immune to change.)\n\n'),(494909,'zefram',NULL,105,'Initial Immutable Rule 105, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule Change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal,\n or amendment of a mutable Rule; or (2) the transmutation\n of an immutable Rule into a mutable Rule or vice versa.\n (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new\n Rules are Mutable; Immutable Rules, as long as they are Immutable,\n may not be Amended or Repealed; Mutable Rules, as long as they are\n Mutable, may be Amended or Repealed; any Rule of any status may be\n Transmuted; no Rule is absolutely immune to change.)\n\n'),(494910,'zefram',NULL,105,'Initial Immutable Rule 105, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal,\n or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation\n of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.\n (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new\n rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable,\n may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are\n mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be\n transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.)\n\n'),(494911,'zefram',NULL,105,'Amended by Proposal 1275, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule Change is any of the following:\n 1) the enactment of a new Rule (a \"Creation\"). ;\n 2) the amendment of an existing Rule (an \"Amendment\");\n 3) the repeal of an existing Rule (a \"Repeal\");\n 4) the modification of an existing Rule\'s Mutability Index (a\n \"Mutation\").\n\n Additional Rule Changes may be created by appropriate\n legislation. No Rule Change may directly change any part of the\n Game State other than the Rules. No Rule may be changed except\n by the means of a Rule Change of a type specified in the Rules.\n\n'),(494912,'zefram',NULL,105,'Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule Change is any of the following:\n\n * The enactment of a new Rule;\n * The repeal of an existing Rule;\n * The amendment of the text of an existing Rule; or\n * Any change to a substantive property of a Rule other than\n its text.\n\n A \"substantive property of a Rule\" is any property of that\n Rule (other than its text) which determines in part or in full\n the ability of that Rule to govern by itself or in conjunction\n with other Rules.\n\n'),(494913,'zefram',NULL,105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign it a number, which must be greater than any number\n previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify\n the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the\n proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power\n equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the\n power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified,\n the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.\n\n (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can\n modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater\n than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have\n power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification\n specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and\n without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in\n the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity\n for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.\n\n (c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to\n be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted, modified, or repealed.\n\n'),(494914,'zefram',NULL,105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4886 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign it a number, which must be greater than any number\n previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify\n the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the\n proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power\n equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the\n power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified,\n the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.\n\n (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can\n modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater\n than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have\n power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification\n specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void\n and without effect. A variation in whitespace, capitalization,\n or substitution of section labels with the same ordinal position\n (e.g. 1 / a / i, 2 / b / ii, etc.) in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule,\n but any other variation does.\n\n (c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to\n be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted, modified, or repealed.\n\n'),(494915,'zefram',NULL,105,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(494916,'zefram',NULL,105,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 2131 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When enacted, rules have Power 1.\n\n (b) Assign a number to a rule.\n\n (c) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule.\n\n (d) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases\n to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n'),(494917,'zefram',NULL,105,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign it a number, which must be greater than any number\n previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify\n the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the\n proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power\n equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the\n power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified,\n the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.\n\n (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can\n modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater\n than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have\n power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification\n specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and\n without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in\n the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity\n for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.\n\n (c) Repeal a rule. A Proposal can repeal a rule with power no\n greater than its own. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases\n to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted, modified, or repealed.\n\n'),(494918,'zefram',NULL,105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument;\n any attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n'),(494919,'zefram',NULL,105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n'),(494920,'zefram',NULL,106,'Initial Immutable Rule 106, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rule Changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on.\n They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required\n number of votes and Quorum is achieved.\n\n'),(494921,'zefram',NULL,106,'Initial Immutable Rule 106, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rule Changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on.\n They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number\n of votes and Quorum is achieved.\n\n'),(494922,'zefram',NULL,106,'Initial Immutable Rule 106, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on.\n They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number\n of votes and quorum is achieved.\n\n'),(494923,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended by Proposal 1278, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Proposals made in the proper way shall be voted upon. A\n Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the\n required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved.\n\n'),(494924,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), 3 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Proposals made and distributed in the proper way shall\n be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if\n it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is\n achieved.\n\n'),(494925,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494926,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker.\n\n The default adoption index of a proposal is one. Before the\n Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its\n adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption\n Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494927,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1\n is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494928,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1\n is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494929,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of\n less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494930,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of\n less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494931,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494932,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494933,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494934,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494935,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494936,'zefram',NULL,106,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494937,'zefram',NULL,107,'Initial Immutable Rule 107, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise\n communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted,\n it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.\n\n'),(494938,'zefram',NULL,107,'Initial Immutable Rule 107, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise\n communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it\n must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.\n\n'),(494939,'zefram',NULL,107,'Initial Immutable Rule 107, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any proposed rule change must be written down (or otherwise\n communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it\n must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.\n\n'),(494940,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), 9 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise\n communicated in valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted,\n it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. For\n the purposes of this rule, print and electronic media, including\n mailing lists, are valid media.\n\n'),(494941,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the election for\n Scorekeepor\" or \"the adoption of proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n'),(494942,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n'),(494943,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n'),(494944,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a\n dependent action.\n\n'),(494945,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a\n dependent action.\n\n'),(494946,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days,\n unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action.\n\n'),(494947,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days.\n\n'),(494948,'zefram',NULL,107,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days.\n\n'),(494949,'zefram',NULL,108,'Initial Immutable Rule 108, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Rule Change may take effect earlier than the moment of the\n completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording\n explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive\n application.\n\n'),(494950,'zefram',NULL,108,'Initial Immutable Rule 108, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the\n completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording\n explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive\n application.\n\n'),(494951,'zefram',NULL,108,'Amended by Proposal 1276, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Rule Change may take effect earlier than the moment of the\n adoption of the Proposal in which it is contained, if it is a\n proposed Rule Change, or the moment of the adoption of the\n current form of the Rule which requires the Rule Change, if it\n is a non-proposed Rule Change.\n\n No Rule Change may have retroactive application.\n\n'),(494952,'zefram',NULL,108,'Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 3572 (Steve), 30 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A given form of a Rule may not have effects earlier than\n the moment it came to have that form. The form of a Rule\n consists of its text and other substantive properties.\n\n No Rule Change may have retroactive application.\n\n'),(494953,'zefram',NULL,108,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 108 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(494954,'zefram',NULL,109,'Initial Immutable Rule 109, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker shall give each proposed Rule Change a Number for\n reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Rule\n Change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next\n successive integer, whether or not the Proposal is adopted.\n If a Rule is Repealed and Reenacted, it receives the Number of\n the Proposal to Reenact it. If a Rule is Amended or Transmuted,\n it receives the Number of the Proposal to Amend or Transmute it.\n\n'),(494955,'zefram',NULL,109,'Initial Immutable Rule 109, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker shall give each proposed Rule Change a Number for\n reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Rule Change\n proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive\n integer, whether or not the Proposal is adopted.\n If a Rule is Repealed and Reenacted, it receives the Number of the\n Proposal to Reenact it. If a Rule is Amended or Transmuted, it\n receives the Number of the Proposal to Amend or Transmute it.\n\n'),(494956,'zefram',NULL,109,'Initial Immutable Rule 109, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker shall give each proposed rule change a number for\n reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule change\n proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive\n integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted.\n If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the\n proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it\n receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it.\n\n'),(494957,'zefram',NULL,109,'Amended by Proposal 1067, 4 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker shall give each Proposal which has been proposed in\n the proper way a Number for reference. The Number assigned to a\n given Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all\n Numbers previously assigned, or 301, whichever is greater. No\n Proposal may have the same Number as any previous Proposal.\n\n When a Rule is Created, it receives the Number of the Proposal\n to Create it. Once created, a Rule shall not have its Number\n changed, except as specified in the Rules.\n\n'),(494958,'zefram',NULL,109,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker shall give each Proposal which has been proposed in\n the proper way a Number for reference. The Number assigned to a\n given Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all\n Numbers previously assigned, or 301, whichever is greater. No\n Proposal may have the same Number as any previous Proposal.\n\n When a Rule is Created, it receives the Number of the Proposal\n to Create it. Once created, a Rule shall not have its Number\n changed, except as specified in the Rules.\n (*Was: 1057*)\n\n'),(494959,'zefram',NULL,109,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1530, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Promotor shall give each submitted Proposal a Number for\n reference. The Number of a Proposal shall be the least integer\n greater than all other Numbers previously assigned to a Proposal\n (including numbers assigned to Proposals later determined to\n have been incorrectly submitted), or 301, whichever is greater.\n\n'),(494960,'zefram',NULL,109,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3706 (Harlequin), 9 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the time e distributes it, the Promotor shall give each\n Proposal a Number for reference. The Number of a Proposal shall\n be the least integer greater than all other Numbers previously\n assigned to a Proposal (including numbers assigned to Proposals\n later determined to have been incorrectly submitted), or 301,\n whichever is greater.\n\n'),(494961,'zefram',NULL,109,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 109 by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), 15 March 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(494962,'zefram',NULL,110,'Initial Immutable Rule 110, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Rule Changes that Transmute Immutable Rules into Mutable Rules\n may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among Votes\n legally cast. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be\n stated explicitly in a Proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494963,'zefram',NULL,110,'Initial Immutable Rule 110, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Rule changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules\n may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among votes\n legally cast. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be\n stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect.\n\n'),(494964,'zefram',NULL,112,'Initial Immutable Rule 112, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered\n from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The\n magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed,\n and Rules that establish a Winner when play cannot continue may\n be Enacted and (while they are mutable) be Amended or Repealed.\n\n'),(494965,'zefram',NULL,112,'Initial Immutable Rule 112, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered\n from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The\n magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed,\n and Rules that establish a Winner when play cannot continue may be\n Enacted and (while they are mutable) be Amended or Repealed.\n\n'),(494966,'zefram',NULL,112,'Initial Immutable Rule 112, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered\n from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The\n magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed,\n and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be\n enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed.\n\n'),(494967,'zefram',NULL,112,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1451, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules.\n Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be\n defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition\n defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player,\n provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at\n that time for that Player.\n\n If no Rule defining a way to Win exists, then a Player Wins upon each\n Winter and Summer Solstice, and upon each Vernal and Autumnal\n Equinox, with the Winner being chosen randomly by the Speaker\n from among all Voters not on Hold who are not ineligible to Win\n because of an applicable Win-preventing Rule.\n\n'),(494968,'zefram',NULL,112,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules.\n Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be\n defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition\n defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player,\n provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at\n that time for that Player.\n\n If no other Rule defining a way to Win exists, then a Player\n Wins upon each Winter and Summer Solstice, and upon each Vernal\n and Autumnal Equinox, with the Winner being chosen randomly by\n the Speaker from among all Voters not on Hold who are not\n ineligible to Win because of an applicable Win-preventing Rule.\n\n'),(494969,'zefram',NULL,112,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules.\n Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be\n defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition\n defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player,\n provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at\n that time for that Player.\n\n'),(494970,'zefram',NULL,112,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4377 (Murphy), 11 September 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is eligible to Win the Game while e meets at least one\n Win Condition, and does not meet any Win-Preventing Conditions.\n\n Any Player may publish a Notice of Victory that lists all\n Players eligible to Win the Game, and (for each listed Player)\n identifies at least one Win Condition met by that Player. If\n this information is accurate, then the listed Players Win the\n Game.\n\n This is the only way to Win the Game. If a Player would\n otherwise Win the Game due to other Rules, then e instead meets\n a Win Condition for one week (and may Win the Game as described\n above).\n\n'),(494971,'zefram',NULL,112,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 112 by Proposal 4488 (Peekee), 6 May 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(494972,'zefram',NULL,113,'Initial Immutable Rule 113, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player always has the option to forfeit the Game rather than\n continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than\n losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be\n imposed.\n\n'),(494973,'zefram',NULL,113,'Initial Immutable Rule 113, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player always has the option to forfeit the Game rather than\n continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than\n losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed.\n\n'),(494974,'zefram',NULL,113,'Initial Immutable Rule 113, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than\n continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than\n losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed.\n\n'),(494975,'zefram',NULL,113,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1304, 4 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than\n continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse\n than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur\n it, may be imposed.\n\n'),(494976,'zefram',NULL,113,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player other than the Speaker may always deregister from the\n Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No\n penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player\n to incur it, may be imposed.\n\n'),(494977,'zefram',NULL,114,'Initial Immutable Rule 114, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There must always be at least one Mutable Rule. The adoption of\n Rule Changes must never become completely inpermissible.\n\n'),(494978,'zefram',NULL,114,'Initial Immutable Rule 114, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of\n rule changes must never become completely inpermissible.\n\n'),(494979,'zefram',NULL,114,'Amended by Proposal 1277, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There must always be at least one Rule with a Mutability Index\n of 1. Any Rule Change which would result in this condition\n becoming false shall not have any legal force.\n\n The Adoption of Rule Changes shall never become completely\n impermissible.\n\n'),(494980,'zefram',NULL,114,'Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 2802 (Zefram; disi.), 8 February 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n It must always be possible to make arbitrary modifications to\n the ruleset by some combination of player actions. Any change\n to the gamestate that would cause this condition to become false\n does not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n'),(494981,'zefram',NULL,115,'Initial Immutable Rule 115, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply\n Rule Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even\n Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are\n permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible\n solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a\n Rule.\n\n'),(494982,'zefram',NULL,115,'Initial Immutable Rule 115, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply\n Rule Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even\n Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible.\n No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of\n the self-reference or self-application of a Rule.\n\n'),(494983,'zefram',NULL,115,'Initial Immutable Rule 115, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply Rule\n Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even Rule\n Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are\n permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible\n solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a\n Rule.\n\n'),(494984,'zefram',NULL,115,'Initial Immutable Rule 115, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Rule changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply\n rule changes are as permissible as other rule changes. Even\n rule changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible.\n No rule change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of\n the self-reference or self-application of a rule.\n\n'),(494985,'zefram',NULL,115,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 115 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(494986,'zefram',NULL,116,'Initial Immutable Rule 116, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted\n and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules,\n which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly\n or implicitly permits it.\n\n'),(494987,'zefram',NULL,116,'Initial Immutable Rule 116, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted\n and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules,\n which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or\n implicitly permits it.\n\n'),(494988,'zefram',NULL,116,'Initial Immutable Rule 116, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted\n and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules,\n which is permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or\n implicitly permits it.\n\n'),(494989,'zefram',NULL,201,'Initial Mutable Rule 201, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a proposed Rule Change is defined to be 20% of Voters\n at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that\n Proposal.\n\n'),(494990,'zefram',NULL,201,'Initial Mutable Rule 201, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a proposed Rule Change is defined to be 20% of Voters\n at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.\n\n'),(494991,'zefram',NULL,201,'Initial Mutable Rule 201, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a proposed rule change is defined to be 20% of Voters\n at the beginning of the prescribed voting period for that proposal\n\n'),(494992,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended by Proposal 879 (Garth), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is defined as 35% of all Players, or 50%\n of all Voters not On Hold, whichever is greater.\n\n Any determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall\n use the number of Players or Voters at the beginning of the\n prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.\n\n'),(494993,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is defined as 35% of all Players, or 50%\n of all Voters not On Hold, whichever is greater.\n\n Any determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall\n use the number of Players or Voters at the beginning of the\n prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.\n (*Was: 201*)\n\n'),(494994,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1554, 17 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on\n that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the\n Players not On Hold, whichever is greater.\n\n Any determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall\n use the number of Players or Players at the beginning of the\n prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.\n (*Was: 201*)\n\n'),(494995,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1708, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on\n that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the\n Players not On Hold, whichever is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of\n Registered Players at the beginning of the prescribed Voting\n Period for that Proposal.\n\n'),(494996,'zefram',NULL,201,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 27 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on\n that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the\n Players not On Hold, whichever is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of\n Registered Players at the beginning of the prescribed Voting\n Period for that Proposal.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(494997,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 2786 (Steve), 15 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that\n Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not\n On Hold, whichever is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of\n Registered Players, and their Hold statuses (On or Off), at the\n beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.\n\n'),(494998,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that\n Proposal by one-third of Active Players, or one-fifth of all\n Players, whichever is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of\n Registered Players, and their Hold statuses (On or Off), at the\n beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal.\n\n'),(494999,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), 3 August 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that\n Proposal by one-third of Active Players not denied voting\n privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the\n prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information\n current at that time.\n\n'),(495000,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without Objection), 20 April 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that\n Proposal by one-third of Active Voters not denied voting\n privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the\n prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information\n current at that time.\n\n'),(495001,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), 28 December 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that\n Proposal by one-third of Active Players not denied voting\n privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the\n prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information\n current at that time.\n\n Other Rules may provide an explicit method whereby a Player who\n has not voted on a Proposal may be considered, for the purposes\n of Quorum, to have voted on that Proposal.\n\n'),(495002,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), 1 March 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for an Ordinary Proposal is achieved if three Oligarchs\n cast votes on the Proposal.\n\n Quorum for a Democratic Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast\n on the Proposal by one-third of Active Players who are not\n Denied on that Proposal, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever\n is greater.\n\n Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the\n prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information\n current at that time. However, if an Ordinary Proposal becomes a\n Democratic Proposal during its Voting Period (or vice versa),\n then Quorum is recalculated at the time of the change.\n\n'),(495003,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three\n Oligarchs cast votes on it.\n\n A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if:\n (1) at least one-third of all Active Players, or\n (2) at least one-fifth of all Players\n cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be\n determined from the number of Players and number of Active\n Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at\n the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.\n\n'),(495004,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three\n Oligarchs cast votes on it.\n\n A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if:\n (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or\n (2) at least one-fifth of all Players\n cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be\n determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy\n Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the\n time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.\n\n'),(495005,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs\n cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not Veto it.\n\n A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if:\n (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or\n (2) at least one-fifth of all Players\n cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be\n determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy\n Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the\n time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.\n\n'),(495006,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs\n cast votes on it.\n\n A democratic proposal achieves quorum if:\n (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or\n (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on\n it.\n\n Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the\n number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players\n at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it\n was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n'),(495007,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs\n cast votes on it.\n\n A democratic proposal achieves quorum if:\n (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or\n (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on\n it.\n\n Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the\n number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players\n at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it\n was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n A Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the\n entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have\n cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.\n\n'),(495008,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs\n cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.\n\n A democratic proposal achieves quorum if:\n (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or\n (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on\n it.\n\n Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the\n number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players\n at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it\n was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n A Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the\n entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have\n cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.\n\n'),(495009,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n'),(495010,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n shareholders cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto\n it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n'),(495011,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n players cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n'),(495012,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The quorum for an Agoran decision is one third the number of\n eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless\n there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the\n quorum level is the number of eligible voters).\n\n'),(495013,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up,\n with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which\n quorum is N).\n\n'),(495014,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up,\n with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which\n quorum is N).\n\n Voters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered\n eligible for the purposes of this rule.\n\n'),(495015,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n'),(495016,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N, or the decision is whether to\n approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero).\n\n'),(495017,'zefram',NULL,201,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n'),(495018,'zefram',NULL,202,'Initial Mutable Rule 202, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All players begin with 0 points. Points may not be gained, lost, or\n traded except as explicitly stated in the rules.\n\n'),(495019,'zefram',NULL,203,'Initial Mutable Rule 203, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Winner is the first Voter to achieve 100 (positive) points.\n If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all\n such Voters win.\n When a game ends in this manner:\n -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Speaker, and\n the old Speaker becomes a Voter\n -If there is more than one Winner, the Speaker randomly selects one\n of the Winners, who becomes the new Speaker, and the old Speaker\n Speaker becomes a Voter.\n -All Players\' scores are reset to 0.\n -A new game is begun. All Rules and proposed Rule Changes retain\n the status they had at the end of the old game.\n\n'),(495020,'zefram',NULL,203,'Initial Mutable Rule 203, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The winner is the first Voter to achieve 100 (positive) points.\n If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all\n such Voters win.\n When a game ends in this manner:\n -If there is only one winner, that Voter becomes the Speaker, and\n the old Speaker becomes a Voter\n -If there is more than one winner, the Speaker randomly selects\n one of the winners, who becomes the new Speaker, and the old\n Speaker becomes a Voter.\n -All players\' scores are reset to 0.\n -A new game is begun. All rules and proposed rule changes retain\n the status they had at the end of the old game.\n\n'),(495021,'zefram',NULL,204,'Initial Mutable Rule 204, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal shall be made by submitting it to the Speaker. Only Voters\n may make Proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a Proposal,\n the Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number and distribute the\n Proposal along with its Number to all Players.\n\n'),(495022,'zefram',NULL,204,'Initial Mutable Rule 204, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal shall be made by submitting it to the Speaker. Only\n Voters may make proposals. As soon as possible after receiving\n a proposal, the Speaker shall assign the proposal a number and\n distribute the proposal along with its number to all players\n\n'),(495023,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended by Proposal 415 (KoJen), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal by a Voter shall be made by submitting it to the\n Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the\n Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number\n and distribute the Proposal along with its number to all\n Players.\n\n The Mighty Speaker may also make Proposals. The Mighty Speaker\n must process all pending Voter-submitted Proposals first, and\n may then Process Proposals of the Mighty Speaker, assigning\n these Proposals a number and distributing them in the same\n fashion as any other Proposal.\n\n'),(495024,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended by Proposal 415 (KoJen), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal by a Voter shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty\n Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Mighty\n Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number and distribute the Proposal\n along with its number to all Players.\n\n The Mighty Speaker may also make Proposals. The Mighty Speaker must\n process all pending voter-submitted Proposals first, and may then\n Process Proposals of the Mighty Speaker, assigning these Proposals a\n number and distributing them in the same fashion as any other Proposal.\n\n'),(495025,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended by Proposal 1036, 21 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the\n Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the\n Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number.\n Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not\n later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Speaker shall\n distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players.\n\n'),(495026,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended by Rule 750, 21 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the\n Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the\n Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number.\n Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not\n later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Speaker shall\n distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players.\n (*Was: 415*)\n\n'),(495027,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1546, 14 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called the Promotor.\n The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points.\n A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the\n Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the\n Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number.\n Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not\n later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor\n shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players.\n\n At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the\n proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir\n failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the\n Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.\n\n'),(495028,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2056, 19 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called the Promotor.\n The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points.\n A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the\n Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the\n Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number.\n Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not\n later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor\n shall post the Proposal to the Public Forum accompanied by its\n Number, the name of the Player who Proposed the Proposal, and\n its Adoption Index.\n\n At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the\n proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir\n failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the\n Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.\n\n'),(495029,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2451, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called the Promotor.\n The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 5 Points.\n A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the\n Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the\n Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number.\n Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not\n later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor\n shall post the Proposal to the Public Forum accompanied by its\n Number, the name of the Player who Proposed the Proposal, and\n its Adoption Index.\n\n At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the\n proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir\n failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the\n Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have.\n\n'),(495030,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2522, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules.\n\n Within seven days of the receipt of a Proposal, and not later\n than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall\n distribute this Proposal to the Public Forum, accompanied by its\n Number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and its Adoption\n Index.\n\n The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above\n accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution\n of the Proposal of any legal effect.\n\n'),(495031,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules.\n\n As Soon As Possible after the receipt of the Proposal, the\n Promotor shall distribute it to the Public Forum, accompanied by\n its Number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and a clear\n indication of whether the Proposal is Disinterested.\n\n The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above\n accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution\n of the Proposal of any legal effect.\n\n'),(495032,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), 12 February 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules.\n E shall then place this Proposal on the Proposal Queue.\n\n The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of\n descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed\n in the order they were proposed.\n\n A Proposal\'s Priority is an integer value. All Proposals\n initially have a Priority of zero.\n\n The Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This\n publication shall include the number, title, priority, and time\n of proposal, for each proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal\'s\n Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then\n this change shall also be published. The actual text of the\n Proposals in the Queue need not be published.\n\n'),(495033,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3706 (Harlequin), 9 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue.\n\n The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of\n descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed\n in the order they were proposed.\n\n A Proposal\'s Priority is an integer value. All Proposals\n initially have a Priority of zero.\n\n The Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This\n publication shall include the number, title, priority, and time\n of proposal, for each proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal\'s\n Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then\n this change shall also be published. The actual text of the\n Proposals in the Queue need not be published.\n\n'),(495034,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), 15 March 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue.\n\n The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of\n descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed\n in the order they were proposed.\n\n A Proposal\'s Priority is an integer multiple of the MUQ of\n P-Notes. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero.\n\n The Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This\n publication shall include the title, priority, and time of\n Proposal, for each Proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal\'s\n Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then\n this change shall also be published. The actual text of the\n Proposals in the Queue need not be published.\n\n'),(495035,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(13) by Proposal 3945 (Peekee), 20 November 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue.\n\n The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of\n descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed\n in the order they were proposed.\n\n A Proposal\'s Priority is an integer. All Proposals initially\n have a Priority of zero.\n\n A Proposal\'s Priority Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ\n of P-Notes. The base Priority Cost for a Proposal is 1, but\n this may be altered by other Rules.\n\n'),(495036,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4050 (t), 15 August 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool.\n\n A Proposal\'s Distribution Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ\n of Papyri. The base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but\n this may be altered by other Rules.\n\n'),(495037,'zefram',NULL,204,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool.\n\n The base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but this may be\n altered by other Rules as long as it remains a positive integer.\n\n'),(495038,'zefram',NULL,204,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1036 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495039,'zefram',NULL,205,'Initial Mutable Rule 205, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal shall be one week,\n beginning at the time the Speaker distributes the Proposal to all\n Players.\n\n'),(495040,'zefram',NULL,205,'Initial Mutable Rule 205, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed voting period for a proposal shall be one week,\n beginning at the time the Speaker distributes the proposal to all\n players.\n\n'),(495041,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended by Proposal 693 (Wes), 12 November 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal shall be seven days,\n beginning at the time that the Proposal is distributed to all\n Players.\n\n'),(495042,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is ten days,\n beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all\n Players.\n\n'),(495043,'zefram',NULL,205,'Infected and Amended(2) Substantially by Rule 1454, 14 September 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is ten days,\n beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all\n Players.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495044,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(3) Substantially by Rule 693, 28 September 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is ten days,\n beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all\n Players.\n\n'),(495045,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), 7 December 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days,\n beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all\n Players.\n\n'),(495046,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), 3 October 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days,\n beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all\n Players. Other Rules may specify other Voting Periods for\n particular types of Proposals.\n\n'),(495047,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days, beginning when\n the Proposal is distributed. Other Rules may specify other\n lengths of Voting Periods for particular classes of Proposals.\n\n'),(495048,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decisionmaking process takes place in the following three\n stages:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision: The decisionmaking process\n begins when a person authorized to initiate the decision\n announces the matter to be decided, including any additional\n information the rules require to be in that announcement.\n\n (b) Voting of the people: Immediately thereafter, the voting\n period for the decision begins. During the voting period,\n eligible voters may vote on the matter, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n (c) Resolution of the decision: After the voting period for the\n decision ends, any person authorized by the rules to resolve\n the decision may announce that the matter has been decided,\n specifying the option selected by Agora.\n\n'),(495049,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decisionmaking process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\n'),(495050,'zefram',NULL,205,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\n'),(495051,'zefram',NULL,206,'Initial Mutable Rule 206, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Voter has exactly one Vote. The Speaker may not Vote.\n\n'),(495052,'zefram',NULL,206,'Initial Mutable Rule 206, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Voter has exactly one vote. The Speaker may not vote.\n\n'),(495053,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1565, 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player has two votes per Proposal, unless another Rule\n specifically says otherwise, and no Player shall have more than\n five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule\n may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in addition\n to a Player\'s first vote may only be achieved by the casting of\n Extra Votes, as specified in other Rules.\n\n'),(495054,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entites are Voting\n Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in\n addition to an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the\n casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in\n other Rules.\n\n'),(495055,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in\n addition to an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the\n casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in\n other Rules.\n\n'),(495056,'zefram',NULL,206,'Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 14 November 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in\n addition to an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the\n casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in\n other Rules.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495057,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2672, 26 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in\n addition to an Entity\'s first vote may only be achieved by the\n casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in\n other Rules.\n\n'),(495058,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 2817 (Blob), 23 February 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes may only\n be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, as specified in other\n Rules.\n\n'),(495059,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes may only\n be achieved by the casting of Voting Tokens, as specified in\n other Rules.\n\n'),(495060,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), 26 February 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary.\n\n'),(495061,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(11)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another\n Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more\n than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other\n Rule may say to the contrary.\n\n'),(495062,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(13)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by\n the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other\n Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in\n specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to\n be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a\n Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities\n designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting\n Entities.\n\n All players with less than 15 Blots are Voting Entities.\n\n Each Voting Entity may cast a number of votes on a Proposal up\n to the Maximum Votes for that Entity most recently reported in\n an Accountor\'s Report at the time the Proposal is distributed.\n If the Maximum Votes for a Voting Entity has never been\n published at the time the Proposal is distributed, that Entity\n may cast up to 5 Votes on that Proposal.\n\n'),(495063,'zefram',NULL,206,'Amended(17)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal if and only if e is\n a Voter and is not Denied for that Proposal at the time e\n attempts to cast eir vote.\n\n On a Democratic Proposal, each entity which is permitted to vote\n on that Proposal may cast a number of votes up to their Maximum\n Votes as shown in the most recently published Accountor\'s Report\n at the time that the Proposal is distributed, unless other Rules\n prohibit them from doing so. If the Maximum Votes for a Voter\n have never been published at the time a Proposal is distributed,\n their Maximum Votes is 5 for that Proposal.\n\n All Players are Voters. However, a Player is Denied for all\n Proposals while e has more than 3 Blots.\n\n'),(495064,'zefram',NULL,207,'Initial Mutable Rule 207, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Voters may Vote either FOR or AGAINST any Proposal within its\n prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the Vote\n must be received by the Speaker by the end of the prescribed Voting\n Period. The Speaker may not reveal any Votes until the end of the\n prescribed Voting Period. Any Voter who does not legally Vote within\n the prescribed Voting Period shall be deemed to have abstained.\n\n'),(495065,'zefram',NULL,207,'Initial Mutable Rule 207, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its\n prescribed voting period. In order to be legally cast, the vote\n must be received by the Speaker by the end of the prescribed voting\n period. The Speaker may not reveal any votes until the end of the\n prescribed voting period. Any Voter who does not legally vote within\n the prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have abstained.\n\n'),(495066,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), 10 November 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Voters may cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for any\n Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be\n legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Counting Speaker\n during the prescribed Voting Period. The Speaker will reveal\n the Votes cast by each Voter only after the prescribed Voting\n Period has ended.\n\n'),(495067,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, 17 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players may cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for any\n Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be\n legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Counting Assessor\n or posted to the Public Forum during the prescribed Voting\n Period. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Player\n only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended.\n\n'),(495068,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Voting Entities may cast a vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n on any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order\n to be legally cast, a vote by a Player or a Group must be\n received by the Counting Assessor or posted to the Public Forum\n during the prescribed Voting Period. The conditions under\n which a Vote by a Voting Entity which is not a Player or a\n Group (if any such exist) is legally cast are described in\n other Rules. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each\n Voting Entity only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended.\n\n'),(495069,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2590, 1 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a Vote upon a Proposal.\n\n A Vote cast upon a Proposal by a Voting Entity which has an\n Executor is cast at the time its Executor either posts it to the\n Public Forum or otherwise sends it to the Assessor. A Vote is\n legally cast if it is cast during the Voting Period of that\n Proposal, and if that Voting Entity is entitled to cast a Vote\n on that particular Proposal.\n\n A Vote cast by a Voting Entity which does not have an Executor\n is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.\n\n This Rule in no way authorizes any Entity to cast Votes upon\n Proposals.\n\n'),(495070,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), 3 April 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity votes upon a Proposal when, during the Voting\n Period of that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or\n votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is\n authorized to cast those votes on that Proposal. Once cast, a\n vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voting Entity which\n cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\n A vote cast by a Voting Entity which does not have an Executor\n is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.\n\n This Rule in no way authorizes any entity to cast votes upon\n Proposals.\n\n'),(495071,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), 31 October 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n an Entity votes upon a Proposal when, during the Voting\n Period of that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or\n votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is\n authorized to cast those votes on that Proposal. Once cast, a\n vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voting Entity which\n cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\n A vote cast by an Entity which does not have an Executor\n is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.\n\n This Rule in no way authorizes any entity to cast votes upon\n Proposals.\n\n'),(495072,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), 14 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do\n so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is\n casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or\n cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be\n cancelled as other Rules require.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\n A vote cast by an entity which does not have an Executor\n is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.\n\n'),(495073,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do\n so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is\n casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or\n cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be\n cancelled as other Rules require.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\n'),(495074,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do\n so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is\n casting on that Proposal. A Voter may change or cancel eir vote\n or votes during the Voting Period by informing the Assessor.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\n'),(495075,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the\n voting period for the decision.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n'),(495076,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n'),(495077,'zefram',NULL,207,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n'),(495078,'zefram',NULL,208,'Initial Mutable Rule 208, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on a Proposal, the\n Speaker shall reveal all Votes legally cast on that Proposal. If\n the Speaker\'s consent may be required for a Proposal to be\n adopted then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or\n not e gives eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly\n indicate that e refuses to consent to the Proposal, it shall be\n assumed that e consents.\n\n'),(495079,'zefram',NULL,208,'Initial Mutable Rule 208, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on a Proposal, the\n Speaker shall reveal all Votes legally cast on that Proposal. If the\n Speaker\'s consent may be required for a Proposal to be adopted then\n the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives eir\n consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e refuses to\n consent to the Proposal, it shall be assumed that e consents.\n\n'),(495080,'zefram',NULL,208,'Initial Mutable Rule 208, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the prescribed voting period on a proposal, the\n Speaker shall reveal all votes legally cast on that proposal. If\n the Speaker\'s consent may be required for a proposal to be adopted,\n then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives\n eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e\n refuses to consent to the proposal, it shall be assumed that e\n consents.\n\n'),(495081,'zefram',NULL,208,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period on a\n given Proposal, the Assessor shall publish all the Votes cast\n upon that Proposal.\n\n'),(495082,'zefram',NULL,208,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is\n authorized to resolve that decision, and does so by publishing a\n valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved,\n indicating the option selected by Agora. To be valid, this\n notice must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It clearly identifies the options available.\n\n (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision shall have at most one vote collector at a\n time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message\n initiating the decision, and can only be changed as specified by\n other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n'),(495083,'zefram',NULL,208,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It clearly identifies the options available.\n\n (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n'),(495084,'zefram',NULL,208,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n'),(495085,'zefram',NULL,208,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n'),(495086,'zefram',NULL,208,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n'),(495087,'zefram',NULL,209,'Initial Mutable Rule 209, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The required Votes for a Proposal to be adopted is as follows:\n For a Proposal which would directly alter the actions which are\n required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker:\n a) a simple majority of all Votes legally cast, if the\n Speaker consents;\n b) a 2/3 majority of all Votes legally cast, if the\n Speaker does not consent;\n For all other Proposals, a simple majority of Votes legally cast.\n This Rule defers to Rules which set the required number of Votes\n for Proposals which propose to transmute a Rule.\n\n'),(495088,'zefram',NULL,209,'Initial Mutable Rule 209, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The required votes for a proposal to be adopted is as follows:\n For a proposal which would directly alter the actions which are\n required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker:\n a) a simple majority of all votes legally cast, if the\n Speaker consents;\n b) a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, if the\n Speaker does not consent;\n For all other proposals, a simple majority of votes legally cast.\n This rule defers to rules which set the required number of votes\n for proposals which propose to transmute a rule.\n\n'),(495089,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), 23 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The required votes for a Proposal to be adopted is as follows:\n For a Proposal which would directly alter the actions which are\n required of and/or forbidden to the Mighty Speaker:\n\n a) a simple majority of all votes legally cast, if the Mighty\n Speaker consents;\n\n b) a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, if the Mighty\n Speaker does not consent;\n\n For all other Proposals, a simple majority of votes legally cast.\n\n In case of a tie in a simple-majority Vote, the Mighty Speaker may,\n but is not required to, cast a tie-breaking Vote. The Mighty Speaker\n receives no Point awards or penalties for doing so.\n\n This Rule defers to rules which set the required Number of Votes\n for Proposals which propose to Transmute a Rule.\n\n'),(495090,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended by Proposal 761, 8 December 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which\n have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. If a\n Proposal is not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast\n then AGAINST votes, then that Proposal shall take effect. If\n such a Proposal has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes,\n then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be\n Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is\n Contested, and the number of FOR votes cast is at least twice\n the number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall take\n effect.\n\n If a Rule will change the actions required of or forbidden to\n the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal, then that\n Proposal shall be considered Contested. The Speaker shall\n declare if e opposes the Proposal when e distributes the\n Proposal.\n\n'),(495091,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended by Rule 750, 8 December 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which\n have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. If a\n Proposal is not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast\n then AGAINST votes, then that Proposal shall take effect. If\n such a Proposal has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes,\n then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be\n Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is\n Contested, and the number of FOR votes cast is at least twice\n the number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall take\n effect.\n\n If a Rule will change the actions required of or forbidden to\n the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal, then that\n Proposal shall be considered Contested. The Speaker shall\n declare if e opposes the Proposal when e distributes the\n Proposal.\n (*Was: 658*)\n\n'),(495092,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended by Proposal 955 (Garth), 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which\n have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. Let the\n number of Votes in favor of a Proposal divided by the number of\n Votes opposed to that Proposal be known as the Voting Factor for\n that Proposal. If the Voting Factor exceeds the mandated\n Adoption Factor for a given Proposal, then that Proposal shall\n be Adopted. If the Voting Factor exactly equals the required\n Adoption Factor, then the Speaker shall decide whether the\n Proposal shall be Adopted, or if the Proposal shall fail.\n\n The Adoption Factor for all Proposals shall be 1, unless\n otherwise specified in the Rules. An Adoption Factor of\n unanimity is a special case: It is defined as an absence of\n Votes in opposition, with at least one Vote in favor.\n\n'),(495093,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended by Rule 750, 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which\n have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. Let the\n number of Votes in favor of a Proposal divided by the number of\n Votes opposed to that Proposal be known as the Voting Factor for\n that Proposal. If the Voting Factor exceeds the mandated\n Adoption Factor for a given Proposal, then that Proposal shall\n be Adopted. If the Voting Factor exactly equals the required\n Adoption Factor, then the Speaker shall decide whether the\n Proposal shall be Adopted, or if the Proposal shall fail.\n\n The Adoption Factor for all Proposals shall be 1, unless\n otherwise specified in the Rules. An Adoption Factor of\n unanimity is a special case: It is defined as an absence of\n Votes in opposition, with at least one Vote in favor.\n (*Was: 761*)\n\n'),(495094,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which\n have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. The\n Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the\n Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in\n favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no\n Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other\n cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor\n divided by the number of Votes opposed.\n\n If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the\n given Proposal, then that Proposal shall pass. If the Voting\n Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Speaker shall\n choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting\n Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail.\n\n'),(495095,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which\n have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The\n Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the\n Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in\n favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no\n Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other\n cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor\n divided by the number of Votes opposed.\n\n If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the\n given Proposal, then that Proposal shall pass. If the Voting\n Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Assessor shall\n choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting\n Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail.\n\n'),(495096,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1723, 6 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which\n have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The\n Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the\n Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in\n favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no\n Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other\n cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor\n divided by the number of Votes opposed.\n\n If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the\n given Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, then that Proposal\n passes. Otherwise, it fails.\n\n'),(495097,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), 16 April 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted\n by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting\n Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed,\n and at least one vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be\n Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, the Voting Index\n shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be\n the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes\n opposed.\n\n If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the\n Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at\n least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal\n is adopted. Otherwise, it fails.\n\n'),(495098,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), 21 December 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted\n by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting\n Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed,\n and at least one vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be\n Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, the Voting Index\n shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be\n the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes\n opposed.\n\n If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the\n Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at\n least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal\n is adopted. Otherwise, it fails.\n\n A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except\n as described in this Rule. A Proposal may not be adopted\n (synonymous with the Proposal passing) except as described\n in this Rule.\n\n'),(495099,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be\n counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned\n a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no\n votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index\n shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting\n Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index\n shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of\n votes against.\n\n (b) If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for\n the Proposal (or if both equal Unanimity), and if Quorum for\n the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted.\n Otherwise, it fails.\n\n (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as\n described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except\n as described in this Rule.\n\n'),(495100,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be\n counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned\n a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no\n votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index\n shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting\n Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index\n shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of\n votes against.\n\n (b) If the Voting Index is greater than or equal to the Adoption\n Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is\n achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it\n fails.\n\n (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as\n described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except\n as described in this Rule.\n\n'),(495101,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be\n counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned\n a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no\n votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index\n shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting\n Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index\n shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of\n votes against.\n\n (b) If the Voting Index is greater than one, and greater than or\n equal to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum\n for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted.\n Otherwise, it fails.\n\n (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as\n described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except\n as described in this Rule.\n\n'),(495102,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal or\n referendum, e shall determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n (d) If the decision is an election, then as long as quorum is\n achieved, the vote collector has the privilege to choose any\n option the strength of which meets or exceeds that of any\n other option to be the option selected by Agora.\n\n'),(495103,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, e shall\n determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n'),(495104,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the\n voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the\n strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1,\n and greater than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index,\n then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:\n\n (1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to\n the objection index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support\n index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined\n strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to\n the majority index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.\n\n'),(495105,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting\n index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:\n\n (1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to\n the objection index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support\n index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined\n strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to\n the majority index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.\n\n'),(495106,'zefram',NULL,209,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting\n index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n'),(495107,'zefram',NULL,210,'Initial Mutable Rule 210, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An adopted Rule Change takes full effect at the moment of the\n completion of the Vote that adopted it.\n\n'),(495108,'zefram',NULL,210,'Initial Mutable Rule 210, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the\n completion of the vote that adopted it.\n\n'),(495109,'zefram',NULL,210,'Amended by Proposal 376 (Ronald Kunne), ca. Aug. 16 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion\n of the vote that adopted it.\n The moment of the completion of the vote is defined by the date and time\n given in the line starting with \"Date:\" of the Nomic listserver message\n send by the Benevolent Speaker, announcing the result of the vote on the\n corresponding proposal.\n\n'),(495110,'zefram',NULL,210,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1271, 24 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date-\n stamped on the first message sent by the Speaker to reach\n the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that\n Proposal.\n\n'),(495111,'zefram',NULL,210,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date-\n stamped on the first message sent by the Assessor to reach\n the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that\n Proposal.\n\n If the message sent by the Assessor announcing the results of\n the voting on a Proposal also contains the results of voting\n upon other Proposals, all such Proposals shall take effect at\n the same time, but in order by increasing Proposal Number.\n\n'),(495112,'zefram',NULL,210,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), 15 March 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date-\n stamped on the first message sent by the Assessor to reach\n the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that\n Proposal.\n\n If the message sent by the Assessor announcing the results of\n the voting on a Proposal also contains the results of voting\n upon other Proposals, all such Proposals shall take effect at\n the same time, but in the order in which they were distributed.\n\n'),(495113,'zefram',NULL,210,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 376 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495114,'zefram',NULL,211,'Initial Mutable Rule 211, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 10\n points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive\n a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive. Players\n whose proposals are not adopted shall lose 10 points.\n\n'),(495115,'zefram',NULL,212,'Initial Mutable Rule 212, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Mutable Rules conflict with one another, or if\n two or more Immutable Rules conflict with one another, then the\n Rule with the lowest ordinal Number takes precedence.\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes\n precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n'),(495116,'zefram',NULL,212,'Initial Mutable Rule 212, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Mutable Rules conflict with one another, or if\n two or more Immutable Rules conflict with one another, then the Rule\n with the lowest ordinal Number takes precedence.\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself\n that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence\n over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall\n supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or\n defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.\n\n'),(495117,'zefram',NULL,212,'Initial Mutable Rule 212, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if\n two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule\n with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.\n If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself\n that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence\n over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall\n supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.\n If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or\n defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.\n\n'),(495118,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended by Proposal 1030, 15 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts\n between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts\n between rules with different Mutability Indices.\n\n (a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices:\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict\n with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes\n precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n (b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices:\n\n Other Rules define the resolution of conflicts between Rules\n with Mutability Indices of Unanimity and Rules with Mutability\n Indices of 1.\n\n Otherwise, in a conflict between rules with different Mutability\n Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes\n precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index.\n\n'),(495119,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended by Rule 750, 15 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts\n between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts\n between rules with different Mutability Indices.\n\n (a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices:\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict\n with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes\n precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n (b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices:\n\n Other Rules define the resolution of conflicts between Rules\n with Mutability Indices of Unanimity and Rules with Mutability\n Indices of 1.\n\n Otherwise, in a conflict between rules with different Mutability\n Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes\n precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index.\n\n'),(495120,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts\n between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts\n between rules with different Mutability Indices.\n\n (a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices:\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict\n with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes\n precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n (b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices:\n\n In a conflict between rules with different Mutability\n Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes\n precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index.\n\n'),(495121,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict\n with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes\n precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly\n says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule)\n or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then\n such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for\n determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take\n precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the\n numerical method again governs.\n\n'),(495122,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict\n with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n'),(495123,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict\n with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs.\n\n'),(495124,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended(4) Cosmetically by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n'),(495125,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n'),(495126,'zefram',NULL,212,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n'),(495127,'zefram',NULL,213,'Initial Mutable Rule 213, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a player may invoke\n Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Speaker.\n Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the\n insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Speaker\n must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules.\n The Speaker must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along\n with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n'),(495128,'zefram',NULL,213,'Initial Mutable Rule 213, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If players disagree about the legality of a move or the\n interpretation or application of a rule, then a player may invoke\n judgement by submitting a statement for judgement to the Speaker.\n Disagreement, for the purposes of this rule, may be created by the\n insistence of any player. When judgement is invoked, the Speaker\n must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules.\n The Speaker must then distribute the statement to be judged, along\n with the identity of the Judge, to all players.\n\n'),(495129,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n'),(495130,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke\n Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the\n Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created\n by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the\n Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as\n described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute\n the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to\n all Players.\n\n'),(495131,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n No Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.\n\n'),(495132,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n No Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.\n\n'),(495133,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n No Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.\n (*Was: 407*)\n\n'),(495134,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n No Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.\n (*Was: 407*)\n\n'),(495135,'zefram',NULL,213,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 23 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n No Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.\n (*Was: 407*)\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495136,'zefram',NULL,213,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 23 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n No Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.\n (*Was: 407*)\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495137,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the\n interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may\n invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this\n Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When\n Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as\n possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk\n of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged,\n along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players.\n\n No Player shall submit more than five CFJ\'s per week.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495138,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a\n Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. For the purpose\n of this and other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement\n shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.\n\n Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is\n clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement.\n\n The Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement,\n along with any additional material submitted by the Caller\n (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not\n later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge\n assigned to Judge it.\n\n'),(495139,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person may seek formal resolution of any dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the\n Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar. Any document submitted to the\n Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar and which is clearly marked as\n a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement. (Although any CFJ\n may be filed with the Justiciar, Players are encouraged to file\n with the CotC unless there is a good reason not to.)\n\n For the purpose of this and other Rules, the submission of a CFJ\n shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.\n\n The Clerk shall distribute the text of a CFJ along with any\n additional material submitted by the Caller (including, but not\n limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not later than the time e\n announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it.\n However, if the CFJ is submitted to the Justiciar, e shall\n perform all duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to\n that CFJ.\n\n'),(495140,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the\n Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof\n of the existence of such a dispute.\n\n A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth\n or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming\n perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,\n Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,\n but not required, to take notice of these things.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including\n but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the\n time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to\n that CFJ.\n\n'),(495141,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the\n Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof\n of the existence of such a dispute.\n\n A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth\n or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming\n perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,\n Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,\n but not required, to take notice of these things.\n\n'),(495142,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by publishing a Call for Judgement (CFJ). The\n submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a\n dispute.\n\n A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth\n or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming\n perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,\n Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,\n but not required, to take notice of these things.\n\n'),(495143,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n'),(495144,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(495145,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(495146,'zefram',NULL,213,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(495147,'zefram',NULL,214,'Initial Mutable Rule 214, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If Judgement was invoked by a Voter, then the first Judge to be\n selected to Judge that Statement shall be the Speaker. If Judgement\n was invoked by the Speaker, the first Judge to be selected shall be\n be a randomly selected Voter.\n In all cases, if a Judge beyond the first must be selected to judge\n a Statement, it shall be a randomly selected Voter. The Voter thus\n selected may not be the Player most recently selected as Judge for\n that Statement, nor may e be the Player who invoked Judgement.\n\n'),(495148,'zefram',NULL,214,'Initial Mutable Rule 214, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If judgement was invoked by a Voter, then the first Judge to be\n selected to judge that statement shall be the Speaker. If judgement\n was invoked by the Speaker, the first Judge to be selected shall be\n a randomly selected Voter.\n In all cases, if a Judge beyond the first must be selected to judge\n a statement, it shall be a randomly selected Voter. The Voter thus\n selected may not be the player most recently selected as Judge for\n that statement, nor may e be the player who invoked judgement.\n\n'),(495149,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended by Proposal 364, 8 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected from\n among the Players (excluding the Player who called for Judgement). The\n Player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the\n appointment by posting to the listserv. Any Player who does not\n respond to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is\n deemed to have refused appointment. If a selected Player refuses\n appointment, then a further random selection is made from the\n remaining pool.\n\n'),(495150,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended by Proposal 890 (Garth), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge\n excluding those on hold, calling for judgement, whose move is\n under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on\n this CFJ.\n\n Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying\n the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player\n shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall\n also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.\n\n Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC\n shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player.\n (*Was: 647*)\n\n'),(495151,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge\n excluding those on hold, calling for judgement, whose move is\n under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on\n this CFJ.\n\n Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying\n the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player\n shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall\n also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.\n\n Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC\n shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player.\n (*Was: 647/793*)\n\n'),(495152,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended by Proposal 951 (Steve), 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge\n excluding those on hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling\n for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or\n have declined appointment on this CFJ.\n\n Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying\n the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player\n shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall\n also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.\n\n Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC\n shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player.\n (*Was: 647/793*)\n\n'),(495153,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended by Rule 750, 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge\n excluding those on hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling\n for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or\n have declined appointment on this CFJ.\n\n Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying\n the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player\n shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall\n also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC.\n\n Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC\n shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player.\n (*Was: 647/793/890*)\n\n'),(495154,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1306, 4 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomply appoint a Player to Judge that\n CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this\n Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding\n those:\n\n (i) who are On Hold;\n (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ;\n (iii) who made the CFJ;\n (iv) whose Move the legality of which is to be determined by\n the CFJ;\n (v) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ;\n (vi) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular\n CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The\n declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for\n that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be\n given to the CotC.\n\n If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of\n a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining\n Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence\n ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the\n Rules, then the CotC shall select another Eligible Player to\n Judge the CFJ.\n\n'),(495155,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1500, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomply appoint a Player to Judge that\n CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this\n Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding\n those:\n\n (i) who are On Hold;\n (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ;\n (iii) who made the CFJ;\n (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ;\n (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular\n CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The\n declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for\n that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be\n given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player.\n\n If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of\n a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining\n Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence\n ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the\n Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible\n Player to Judge the CFJ.\n\n'),(495156,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1644, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to Judge that\n CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this\n Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding\n those:\n\n (i) who are On Hold;\n (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ;\n (iii) who made the CFJ;\n (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ;\n (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular\n CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The\n declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for\n that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be\n given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player.\n\n If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of\n a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining\n Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence\n ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the\n Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible\n Player to Judge the CFJ.\n\n'),(495157,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended(6) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the\n Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to Judge that\n CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this\n Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding\n those:\n\n (i) who are On Hold;\n (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ;\n (iii) who made the CFJ;\n (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ;\n (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular\n CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The\n declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for\n that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be\n given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player.\n The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur\n as a result of this Rule.\n\n If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of\n a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining\n Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence\n ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the\n Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible\n Player to Judge the CFJ.\n\n'),(495158,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever there is a Call for Judgement which has been neither\n Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to\n Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players\n eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as\n possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the\n Courts.\n\n The Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is\n assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection\n is made.\n\n'),(495159,'zefram',NULL,214,'Null-Amended(8) by Proposal 2506, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever there is a Call for Judgement which has been neither\n Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to\n Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players\n eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as\n possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the\n Courts.\n\n The Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is\n assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection\n is made.\n\n'),(495160,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended(9) by Proposal 2553, 22 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever there is a Call for Judgement which is neither\n Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to\n Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players\n eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as\n possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the\n Courts.\n\n The Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is\n assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection\n is made.\n\n'),(495161,'zefram',NULL,214,'Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever there is an open Call for Judgement to which no Player\n has been assigned as its Judge, the Clerk of the Court shall, as\n soon as possible after being made aware of this condition,\n randomly select a Player to be assigned as its Judge. This\n selection shall be made from amongst all those Players eligible\n to serve as the Judge of that CFJ.\n\n Once assigned as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the\n Judge of that CFJ until e is recused from that CFJ, or e ceases\n to be a Player.\n\n The Clerk shall announce the identity of the Player who is\n assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection\n is made.\n\n A CFJ is \"open\" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or\n if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to that\n CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is\n not open is closed.\n\n'),(495162,'zefram',NULL,214,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 951 by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 December 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495163,'zefram',NULL,215,'Initial Mutable Rule 215, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n After the Speaker has distributed the Statement to be judged and\n the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to\n deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement\n within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge is selected.\n A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Speaker,\n who must then distribute that Judgement to all players as soon as\n possible.\n\n'),(495164,'zefram',NULL,215,'Initial Mutable Rule 215, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n After the Speaker has distributed the statement to be judged and the\n identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a\n legal judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a judgement within\n this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge is selected.\n A judgement is delivered by submitting that judgement to the\n Speaker, who must then distribute that judgement to all players\n as soon as possible.\n\n'),(495165,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to\n be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week\n in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to\n deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points\n and a new Judge is selected. A Judgement is delivered by\n submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must\n then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as\n possible.\n\n'),(495166,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to be\n judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which\n to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a\n Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge\n is selected. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement\n to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement\n to all Players as soon as possible.\n\n'),(495167,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1383, 17 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to\n be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week\n in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to\n deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points\n and the CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible\n Players. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement\n to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that\n Judgement to all Players as soon as possible.\n\n'),(495168,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1500, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to\n be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week\n in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to\n deliver a Judgement within this time, e gains 3 Blots and the\n CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible Players.\n A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to\n all Players as soon as possible.\n\n Blots gained via this rule are reported to the Tabulator by the\n CotC.\n\n'),(495169,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e\n fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ,\n ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits an\n Infraction to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and breaing\n bearing a penalty of three Blots.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither\n required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or\n dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that\n CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n'),(495170,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2587, 1 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e\n fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ,\n ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits an\n Infraction to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing\n a penalty of three Blots.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither\n required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or\n dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that\n CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n'),(495171,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(5) Cosmetically by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e\n fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ,\n ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the\n Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of\n the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither\n required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or\n dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that\n CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n'),(495172,'zefram',NULL,215,'Infected and Amended(6) Substantially by Rule 1454, 14 August 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e\n fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ,\n ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the\n Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of\n the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither\n required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or\n dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that\n CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495173,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(7) Substantially by Rule 408, 28 August 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e\n fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ,\n ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the\n Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of\n the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither\n required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or\n dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that\n CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n'),(495174,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days\n after e is assigned to Judge it.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Judging Late, detected\n and reported by the CotC. At the time of the report of\n infraction, if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed then the\n penalty is 1 VT and the Judgement or dismissal is legal even\n though delivered late. Otherwise the penalty is 3 Blots, and\n the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge\n shall be assigned in the usual manner.\n\n A Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven\n days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes\n ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal\n submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted\n by the CotC.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is\n neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on,\n or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to\n that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n'),(495175,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days\n after e is assigned to Judge it.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Judging Late, detected\n and reported by the CotC. At the time of the report of the\n Infraction, if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed then the\n penalty is 1 VT and the Judgement or dismissal is legal even\n though delivered late. Otherwise the penalty is 3 Blots, and\n the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge\n shall be assigned in the usual manner.\n\n A Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven\n days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes\n ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal\n submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted\n by the CotC.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is\n neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on,\n or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to\n that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n'),(495176,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to\n either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ\n within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days\n after e is assigned to Judge it.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Judging Late, detected\n and reported by the CotC. This is a Class 0.2 Infraction if\n the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed at the time the Infraction\n is reported (such Judgement or dismissal is legal even though\n delivered late); otherwise it is a Class 3 Infraction, the\n Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge\n shall be assigned in the usual manner.\n\n A Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven\n days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes\n ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal\n submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted\n by the CotC.\n\n However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be\n eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is\n neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on,\n or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to\n that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible.\n\n'),(495177,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Deliberation Period for any particular CFJ begins when\n the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge\n and ends seven days later.\n\n At any point after the end of the Deliberation Period for\n a particular CFJ, if the Judge has not yet returned\n Judgement or Dismissed that CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts\n may Recuse that Judge from the case and assign a new one as\n usual. If this occurs, then the Recused Judge shall commit\n the Class 3 Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported\n by the Clerk of the Courts, and shall furthermore be\n ineligible to Judge any future CFJ\'s until such time as e\n requests to be made eligible again by publicly posting such a\n request.\n\n Seven days after the end of the Deliberation Period, the\n Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ and commits the\n Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this\n Rule.\n\n If the Judge returned a Judgement or Dismisses that CFJ\n after the end of the Deliberation Period but before being\n Recused as Judge, then e shall commit the Infraction of\n Judging a Bit Late, a Class 0.2 Infraction to be detected\n and Reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(495178,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), 10 October 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Deliberation Period for a CFJ begins when the Clerk of the\n Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and ends seven days\n later.\n\n In the week following the end of the Deliberation Period, if the\n Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed the CFJ, then\n the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge from the CFJ and\n assign it to a new Judge, by posting an announcement to that\n effect.\n\n A Judge who Judges or Dismisses a CFJ after the end of the\n Deliberation Period, but before being recused as a Judge,\n commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n A Judge who has neither Judged nor Dismissed a CFJ seven days\n after the end of its Deliberation Period is automatically\n recused from that CFJ.\n\n A Judge who is recused from a CFJ in accordance with this Rule\n commits the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge (to be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts), and becomes\n ineligible to be a Judge until e publicly requests to be made\n eligible again.\n\n'),(495179,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the\n Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by\n announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge\'s Overtime\n Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically\n recused.\n\n A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Class 3\n Infraction of Failure to Judge, to be reported by the Clerk of\n the Courts. E becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one\n month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again,\n whichever is soonest.\n\n'),(495180,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4670 (OscarMeyr), 9 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the\n Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by\n announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge\'s Overtime\n Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically\n recused.\n\n A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of\n Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an\n unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2\n plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be\n reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes\n ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly\n requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.\n\n'),(495181,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4808 (Murphy), 15 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the\n Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement.\n\n Upon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet\n Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by\n announcement as soon as possible.\n\n A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of\n Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an\n unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2\n plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be\n reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes\n ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly\n requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.\n\n'),(495182,'zefram',NULL,215,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement.\n\n Upon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet\n Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by\n announcement as soon as possible.\n\n'),(495183,'zefram',NULL,215,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 408 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495184,'zefram',NULL,216,'Initial Mutable Rule 216, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The\n Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such\n reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. If a\n Judgement is accompanied by reasons and arguments, the Speaker must\n distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement.\n\n'),(495185,'zefram',NULL,216,'Initial Mutable Rule 216, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A legal judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The\n judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such\n reasons and arguments form no part of the judgement itself. If a\n judgement is accompanied by reasons and arguments, the Speaker must\n distribute the reasons and arguments along with the judgement.\n\n'),(495186,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), 26 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement\n may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such reasons and\n arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. If a Judgement is\n accompanied by reasons and arguments, the Clerk of the Courts must\n distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement.\n\n'),(495187,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), 21 October 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The\n Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of\n deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement\n delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid.\n\n Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.\n However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and\n arguments along with the Judgement.\n\n'),(495188,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, 21 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The\n Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of\n deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement\n delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely\n invalid.\n\n Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.\n However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and\n arguments along with the Judgement.\n\n Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than\n appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by\n the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that\n submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this\n evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be\n distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of\n the Courts.\n\n'),(495189,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, 15 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDABLE, or\n UNKNOWN. The Judgement of UNDECIDABLE is reserved for those\n statements which are logically neither TRUE nor FALSE. The\n Judgement of UNKNOWN is for those statements for which the\n Judge is unable to obtain information necessary to determine\n whether the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE.\n\n The Judge must make a reasonable effort to obtain all\n information necessary to determine whether the statement\n is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE.\n\n The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments,\n which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of\n deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement\n delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely\n invalid.\n\n Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself.\n However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and\n arguments along with the Judgement.\n\n Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than\n appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by\n the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that\n submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this\n evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be\n distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of\n the Courts.\n\n'),(495190,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 3 Points.\n\n'),(495191,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 3 Mils.\n\n'),(495192,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 3 Mil.\n\n'),(495193,'zefram',NULL,216,'Infected and Amended(6) Substantially by Rule 1454, 27 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 3 Mil.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495194,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 3 Mil.\n\n'),(495195,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 1 VT.\n\n'),(495196,'zefram',NULL,216,'Infected and Amended(9) Substantially by Rule 1454, 7 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 1 VT.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495197,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(10) Substantially by Rule 591, 21 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the\n Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be\n delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted\n time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of\n the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to\n be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by\n the Clerk.\n\n A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received\n by the Clerk.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 1 VT.\n\n'),(495198,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgment to the Clerk of the\n Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE.\n Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of\n the assigned deliberation period shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 1 VT.\n\n'),(495199,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of\n the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or\n FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of\n the assigned deliberation period shall receive a Judicial\n Salary of 20 Stems\n\n'),(495200,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), 2 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of\n the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or\n FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum.\n\n If a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of\n the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the\n Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as\n soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement.\n\n'),(495201,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of\n the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or\n FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall publish the Judgement.\n\n If a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of\n the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the\n Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as\n soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement.\n\n'),(495202,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Judge of a CFJ Judges it by submitting eir Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. \"Decision\", \"Finding\", and \"Response\" are\n unambiguous synonyms for \"Judgement\".\n\n For a Trial Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the following:\n TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of\n the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence,\n or other material included with the Judgement.\n\n'),(495203,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The judge of a CFJ judges it by publishing eir judgement, along\n with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers\n relevant.\n\n For a trial judge, a judgement is exactly one of the following:\n TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.\n\n'),(495204,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable\n of being accurately described as either false or true, at the\n time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,\n and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,\n uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot\n constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n'),(495205,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n'),(495206,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n'),(495207,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n'),(495208,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n'),(495209,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n'),(495210,'zefram',NULL,216,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n'),(495211,'zefram',NULL,217,'Initial Mutable Rule 217, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom and the\n Spirit of the Game before applying other standards.\n\n'),(495212,'zefram',NULL,217,'Initial Mutable Rule 217, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All judgements must be in accordance with the rules; however, if\n the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement\n to be judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom and the\n spirit of the game before applying other standards.\n\n'),(495213,'zefram',NULL,217,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, 25 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom, the\n Spirit of the Game and past Judgements before applying other\n standards.\n\n'),(495214,'zefram',NULL,217,'Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 7 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom, the\n Spirit of the Game and past Judgements before applying other\n standards.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495215,'zefram',NULL,217,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however,\n if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the\n Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game\n custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of\n the game before applying other standards.\n\n'),(495216,'zefram',NULL,217,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common\n sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game\n before applying other standards.\n\n'),(495217,'zefram',NULL,217,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common\n sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game\n before applying other standards.\n\n When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement\n contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the\n truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was\n issued.\n\n'),(495218,'zefram',NULL,217,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules\n takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or\n unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,\n past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the\n game.\n\n'),(495219,'zefram',NULL,218,'Initial Mutable Rule 218, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the Rules,\n the Speaker shall have the following duties:\n -register new Players\n -maintain a list of all Players and their current scores, and\n make such a list available to all Players\n -maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and make such a\n list available to all Players\n -make a random determination whenever such determination is\n required by the Rules.\n\n'),(495220,'zefram',NULL,218,'Initial Mutable Rule 218, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the rules,\n the Speaker shall have the following duties:\n -register new players\n -maintain a list of all players and their current scores, and\n make such a list available to all players\n -maintain a complete list of the current rules, and make such a\n list available to all players\n -make a random determination whenever such determination is\n required by the rules.\n\n'),(495221,'zefram',NULL,218,'Amended by Proposal 411, 26 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the Rules,\n the Industrious Speaker shall have the following duties:\n -register new Players\n -maintain a list of all Players and their current scores, and\n make such a list available to all Players\n -maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and make such a\n list available to all Players\n -make a random determination whenever such determination is\n required by the Rules and no other Player is specified to make\n the determination.\n\n'),(495222,'zefram',NULL,218,'Amended by Proposal 494, 29 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker shall make all random determinations required by the\n Rules except when the Rules specify another party to make the\n determination.\n\n'),(495223,'zefram',NULL,219,'Initial Mutable Rule 219, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player believes that the Rules are such that further play is\n impossible, or that the legality of a Move cannot be determined with\n finality, or that a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the\n Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. If the\n Statement is judged TRUE, then the Player who invoked Judgement\n shall be declared the Winner of that Game, and the Game ends, with\n no provision for starting another Game.\n This Rule takes precedence over every other Rule determining the\n Winner of the Game.\n\n'),(495224,'zefram',NULL,219,'Initial Mutable Rule 219, 30 June 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a player believes that the rules are such that further play is\n impossible, or that the legality of a move cannot be determined with\n finality, or that a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the\n player may invoke judgement on a statement to that effect. If the\n statement is judged TRUE, then the player who invoked judgement\n shall be declared the winner of that game, and the game ends, with\n no provision for starting another game.\n This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the\n winner of the game.\n\n'),(495225,'zefram',NULL,305,'Created as Power=1 Rule',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Players begin with 0 points. Points may not be gained, lost, or\n traded except as explicitly stated in the Rules.\n\n'),(495226,'zefram',NULL,305,'Amended by Proposal 305',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Players begin with 0 points, except that new Voters who\n enter part-way through a game in progress shall be given the\n average of all current Voters scores. Points may not be gained,\n lost, or traded except as explicitly stated in the Rules.\n\n'),(495227,'zefram',NULL,308,'Created as Power=1 Rule',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Voters who voted AGAINST Proposals which are adopted receive 10\n points apiece. Players whose Proposals are adopted shall receive\n a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive. Players\n whose Proposals are not adopted shall lose 10 points.\n\n'),(495228,'zefram',NULL,308,'Amended',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is finished,\n the Player who proposed the Proposal shall receive F-A points,\n where F is the number of Votes cast FOR the Proposal and A is\n the number of Votes cast AGAINST it.\n\n'),(495229,'zefram',NULL,308,'Amended by Proposal 308',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is finished,\n the Player who proposed the Proposal shall receive F-A points,\n where F is the number of Votes cast FOR the Proposal and A is\n the number of Votes cast AGAINST it; all Players who vote\n AGAINST a Proposal which passes shall receive 2(F-A) points.\n\n'),(495230,'zefram',NULL,312,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 312 by Proposal 312, 15 July 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Voter votes, he gets one (1) point at the end of the Voting\n Period.\n\n'),(495231,'zefram',NULL,312,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1579, 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player votes, e gets one (1) point at the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n'),(495232,'zefram',NULL,312,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For each Proposal, and for each Player, if that Player casts a\n legal Vote on that Proposal, then that Player shall receive one\n Point at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal.\n\n The Assessor shall detect and report these Point transfers, and\n shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal for which the Player\'s Vote was cast.\n\n'),(495233,'zefram',NULL,312,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For each Proposal, and for each Player, if that Player casts a\n legal Vote on that Proposal, then that Player shall receive one\n Mil at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal.\n\n The Assessor shall detect and report these Mark transfers, and\n shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal for which the Player\'s Vote was cast.\n\n'),(495234,'zefram',NULL,316,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 316 by Proposal 353',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495235,'zefram',NULL,319,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 319 by Proposal 319',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Proposal submitted to the Speaker must be headed with a Title.\n\n'),(495236,'zefram',NULL,326,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 326 by Proposal 326, 19 July 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals submitted after the passage of this rule (# 326) which\n contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing or otherwise changing\n points to Players based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are\n disallowed.\n\n'),(495237,'zefram',NULL,326,'Amended by Proposal 783, ca. Jan. 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing,\n or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity\'s holding\n of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they\n cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have\n been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon.\n\n'),(495238,'zefram',NULL,326,'Amended by Rule 750, ca. Jan. 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing,\n or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity\'s holding\n of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they\n cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have\n been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon.\n (*Was: 326*)\n\n'),(495239,'zefram',NULL,326,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1622, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing,\n or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity\'s holding\n of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they\n cast on that Proposal shall not take effect even if adopted, any\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n'),(495240,'zefram',NULL,326,'Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 31 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing,\n or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity\'s holding\n of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they\n cast on that Proposal shall not take effect even if adopted, any\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495241,'zefram',NULL,326,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1683, 29 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing,\n or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity\'s holding\n of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they\n cast on that Proposal shall not take effect even if adopted, any\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n'),(495242,'zefram',NULL,330,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 330 by Proposal 330',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every time a Voter proposes a Proposal, that Voter shall gain\n one Entry into a weekly Lottery. Each week, a random Entry shall\n be selected by the Speaker, and the Voter who \"owns\" that Entry\n shall receive 5 points. For purposes of this Rule, a \"week\"\n shall begin on Monday at 12:00 noon and last seven days, ending\n on Monday at 11:59 am, in the time zone in which the Speaker\n resides. The weekly drawing shall take place as soon as possible\n after the end of the week.\n\n'),(495243,'zefram',NULL,337,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 337 by Proposal 337',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of applying Rule 213, a \"Move\" refers to a Proposal\n of a Rule, vote on a Proposal, call for Judgement, or Judgement.\n Any invocation of Judgement must be in regard to a particular Move\n or question the legality of a particular Rule, which move or Rule\n must be clearly stated in the CFJ. A CFJ which does not contain\n such reference is invalid and not considered for Judgement.\n\n'),(495244,'zefram',NULL,349,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 349 by Proposal 349',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Points shall be computed according to the Rules in effect, then shall\n be rounded to the nearest integer.\n\n'),(495245,'zefram',NULL,352,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 352 by Proposal 352',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current scores\n of all Players to the mailing lists, making his best efforts to\n determine the correct scores. If a Player feels the posted scores are\n incorrect, he may make a Call for Judgement, stating what he believes\n to be the correct scores. If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, the\n scores stated in the Call for Judgement become the official scores of\n all Players. Otherwise, the scores posted by the Speaker become the\n official scores of all Players. If no Call for Judgement is made during\n the week following a posting of scores by the Speaker, the posted\n scores become official, that is, each Player\'s score is changed, if\n necessary, to the amount posted by the Speaker.\n\n'),(495246,'zefram',NULL,355,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 355 by Proposal 355',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player believes that any Player has not abided by a Rule then in\n effect, in the form in which it was then in effect, then the Player may\n invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. However,\n -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points.\n -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the adoption\n of this Rule or more than 30 days before the Accusation.\n -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the same\n committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been judged\n UNDECIDED.\n -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules\n concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may act\n as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would occur, a\n random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be Judge.\n If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been convicted of\n breaking the Rule. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused Player\n has been acquitted of breaking the Rule.\n\n'),(495247,'zefram',NULL,355,'Amended by Proposal 848 (Garth), 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player believes that any Player has not abided by a Rule\n then in effect, in the form in which it was then in effect, then\n the Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect.\n Similarly, if a Player believes that any Player has commited a\n Crime, e may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect.\n Either kind of Statement is known as an Accusation. A Criminal\n Court is defined as the Judge of an Accusation.\n However,\n -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points.\n -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the\n adoption of this Rule or more than 30 days before the\n Accusation.\n -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the\n same committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been\n judged UNDECIDED.\n -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules\n concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may\n act as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would\n occur, a random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be\n Judge.\n If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been\n found Guilty of breaking the Rule or committing the Crime, as\n applicable. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused\n Player has been found Not Guilty of breaking the Rule or\n committing the Crime, as applicable.\n\n'),(495248,'zefram',NULL,355,'Amended by Rule 750, 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player believes that any Player has not abided by a Rule\n then in effect, in the form in which it was then in effect, then\n the Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect.\n Similarly, if a Player believes that any Player has commited a\n Crime, e may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect.\n Either kind of Statement is known as an Accusation. A Criminal\n Court is defined as the Judge of an Accusation.\n However,\n -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points.\n -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the\n adoption of this Rule or more than 30 days before the\n Accusation.\n -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the\n same committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been\n judged UNDECIDED.\n -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules\n concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may\n act as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would\n occur, a random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be\n Judge.\n If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been\n found Guilty of breaking the Rule or committing the Crime, as\n applicable. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused\n Player has been found Not Guilty of breaking the Rule or\n committing the Crime, as applicable.\n (*Was: 355*)\n\n'),(495249,'zefram',NULL,356,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 356 by Proposal 356',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be three Groups named Group Red, Group Blue, and Group Yellow.\n\n Upon the passage of this Rule, each Voter shall be\n designated as a member of one, and only one, of these Groups. The\n Groups shall be as close to equal in population as possible, and the\n Group designated to each Voter shall be chosen randomly, such that\n the above population restriction is followed.\n\n At no time may any Voter be a member of more than one of these Groups.\n\n The Speaker shall reveal to all Players the members of each Group\n when the above actions have taken place, and whenever the members of any\n Group change.\n\n'),(495250,'zefram',NULL,357,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 357 by Proposal 357',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Voter refers to the Nomic Speaker, or any other Speaker, that\n Voter must use one of the following adjectives in conjuction with the\n Speaker:\n\n Admirable, Amazing, August, Astonishing, Astounding, Beloved,\n Benevolent, Brilliant, Celebrated, Circumcised, Circumspect,\n Cogetative, Competant, Consummate, Courteous, Deserving, Devoted,\n Diligent, Distinguished, Divine, Effulgent, Elevated, Eminent,\n Excellent, Exceptional, Extraordinary, Exalted, Fabulous, Famed, Fine,\n Foremost, Generous, Glorious, Gracious, Grand, Great, Hallowed, High,\n Holy, Honored, Illustrious, Impartial, Impressive, Incredible,\n Industrious, Influential, Judicious, Just, Kind, Kosher, Kindred,\n Lofty, Magnificent, Majestic, Magnanimous, Marvelous, Mighty, Neat,\n Noble, Omnilaborant, Outstanding, Overworked, Persuasive, Pensive,\n Phenominal, Pious, Prime, Qualified, Quintessential, Regal, Reknown,\n Remarkable, Respected, Revered, Solicitous, Spectacular, Splendid,\n Superb, Superior, Transcendant, Trustful, Unparalleled, Upright,\n Unusual, Venerated, Vigilent, Virile, Virtuous, Watchful, Wonderful,\n Worshipped, Xenophilic, Zealous, or any combination of the\n preceeding.\n\n Any Voter not following this directive shall lose 1 point per\n reference to the Great and Virtuous Speaker which does not use one of\n the above words.\n\n'),(495251,'zefram',NULL,357,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 357 by Proposal 397',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495252,'zefram',NULL,358,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 358 by Proposal 358',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No proposal is allowed to contain any word which begins with the\n letter indicated in the Title of this proposal, being the second to\n the last letter of the English alphabet. If a Proposal does contain a\n word beginning with the aforementioned letter, the Voter who proposed\n that Proposal shall lose 1 point per instance of a word beginning with\n said letter. This is not dependant upon the passage of the offending\n Proposal into a Rule.\n\n This Rule shall be repealed when Proposal 357 is Amended to include a\n word beginning with said Evil letter. If Proposal 357 is not accepted\n as a Rule, then this Rule shall remain in effect until Repealed.\n\n'),(495253,'zefram',NULL,358,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 358 by Proposal 497',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495254,'zefram',NULL,362,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 362 by Proposal 362',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player quotes a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words\n of another Player, or other references, that Player shall not be\n penalized in points for the terminology or grammar used in those\n quotes. For example, if a Player were to quote Rule 203 in its\n entirety, that Player would not lose points for not referring to our\n Benevolent Speaker properly withing this quote. This Rule takes\n precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or\n grammar.\n\n'),(495255,'zefram',NULL,362,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1507, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player quotes a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the\n words of another Player, or other references, that Player shall\n not be penalized in points nor blots for the terminology or\n grammar used in those quotes. This Rule takes precedence over\n any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar.\n (*Was: 362*)\n\n'),(495256,'zefram',NULL,362,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1756, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player quotes a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the\n words of another Player, or other references, that Player shall\n not be penalized in any way for the terminology or grammar used\n in those quotes.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, a gain or loss of Kudos by any\n means shall not be construed as a punishment.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies\n terminology or grammar.\n\n'),(495257,'zefram',NULL,363,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 363 by Proposal 363',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is convicted of breaking a rule, then the Player who\n first formally accused him of breaking that rule shall receive back\n any points which the accusing Player may have lost as a direct result\n of that accusation. In addition, he shall receive a reward of three\n additional points.\n\n'),(495258,'zefram',NULL,366,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 366 by Proposal 366 (KoJen), 10 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may put self on hold for the purposes of Nomic game play. A\n Player who is on hold may not participate in the Game in any\n way. Specifically:\n\n * Cannot Vote\n * Cannot send any message to the list, except a request to revert to\n active status.\n * Cannot send any private message to any Player which concerns the game.\n * Does not gain or lose points.\n * Is absolved of all normal duties, such as serving as a Judge.\n\n Putting oneself on hold is intended for Players who cannot participate\n for some time, because of vacation, temporary loss of email, or\n whatever. Its use is completely optional, but since penalties could\n acrue from inability to respond to judgeship duties, it is a good\n idea.\n\n A Player puts self on hold by writing a message to the list, stating,\n \"Put me on hold\", or something to that effect. This message must also\n include a reasonable excuse; this is left to Judgement at this time to\n decide.\n\n A Player puts self back on active status by writing a mesage to the\n list, stating, \"Put me on active status\", or something similar. A\n request to return to active status must be at least 4 days later than\n the request to go on hold. (This is intended to prevent such hold\n periods from being too frequent.)\n\n The Benevolent Speaker takes note of these hold and active status\n messages and marks the Player\'s status accordingly.\n\n If a Player makes excessive use of hold status, the Player may lose\n the privilege. Again, this is left to Judgement to define what is\n excessive.\n\n'),(495259,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended by Proposal 464 (Wes), 20 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by\n notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then\n notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On\n Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The\n Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not\n be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not communicate with any other\n Player in any way regarding the Game, with the exception of\n notifying the Speaker of the desire to stop being On Hold. This\n prohibits the Player from Voting, proposing Proposals,\n campaigning, or discussing the Game whatsoever with another\n Player. The Player is also absolved of any duties which would\n require said participation, including appointment as a Judge.\n\n'),(495260,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended by Proposal 870 (Garth), 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by\n notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then\n notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On\n Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The\n Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not\n be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including\n appointment as a Judge\n\n'),(495261,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by\n notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then\n notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On\n Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The\n Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not\n be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including\n appointment as a Judge\n (*Was: 464*)\n\n'),(495262,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1337, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending\n a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not\n place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may\n cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the\n Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e\n last went On Hold.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including\n appointment as a Judge\n (*Was: 464/870*)\n\n'),(495263,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1374, 17 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending\n a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not\n place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may\n cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the\n Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e\n last went On Hold.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including\n appointment as a Judge\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties\n to a particular player or a particular group of players.\n (*Was: 464/870*)\n\n'),(495264,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1618, 10 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending\n a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not\n place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may\n cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the\n Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e\n last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On\n Hold.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including\n appointment as a Judge\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties\n to a particular player or a particular group of players.\n (*Was: 464/870*)\n\n'),(495265,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending\n a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not\n place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may\n cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the\n Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e\n last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On\n Hold.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of em, including\n appointment as a Judge\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties\n to a particular player or a particular group of players.\n (*Was: 464/870*)\n\n'),(495266,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending\n a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not\n place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may\n cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the\n Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e\n last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On\n Hold.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of em, including\n appointment as a Judge.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties\n to a particular player or a particular group of players.\n (*Was: 464/870*)\n\n'),(495267,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending\n a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not\n place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may\n cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the\n Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e\n last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On\n Hold.\n\n While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals,\n or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any\n duties which would otherwise be required of em, including\n appointment as a Judge.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties\n to a particular player or a particular group of players.\n\n'),(495268,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2479, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold.\n This status shall not be changed except as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.\n\n An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e posts a message to the\n Public Forum stating that e wishes to be On Hold.\n\n An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e posts a message to the\n Public Forum stating that e wishes to be Off Hold, provided that\n e has been On Hold for at least 96 hours.\n\n'),(495269,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold.\n This status shall not be changed except as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.\n\n An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e Moves to the Stasis\n Chamber.\n\n An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e Moves from the Stasis\n Chamber. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last\n went On Hold.\n\n'),(495270,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), 22 January 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold.\n This status shall not be changed except as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.\n\n An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e Moves to the Stasis\n Chamber.\n\n An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e Moves from the Stasis\n Chamber. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last\n went On Hold.\n\n \"Active\" and \"Inactive\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"Off Hold\"\n and \"On Hold\", respectively.\n\n'),(495271,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold.\n This status shall not be changed except as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.\n\n An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e announces in the\n Public Forum that e goes On Hold.\n\n An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e announces in the\n Public Forum that e comes Off Hold. E may not do so until at\n least 96 hours after e last went On Hold.\n\n \"Active\" and \"Inactive\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"Off Hold\"\n and \"On Hold\", respectively.\n\n'),(495272,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only active players may vote, make proposals, or hold office.\n Inactive players may not be required by the rules to perform any\n duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can\n require inactive players to perform that duty or action. Frozen\n players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or\n action.\n\n'),(495273,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not\n permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules\n that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to\n perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and\n deregistering.\n\n'),(495274,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not\n permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules\n that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to\n perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and\n deregistering.\n\n Not being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n'),(495275,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4400 (Pakaran), 23 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action.\n\n Not being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n'),(495276,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each player has an activity level, which is either active or\n inactive. \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms\n for \"active\" and \"inactive\", respectively.\n\n (b) Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e is active.\n\n (c) A player may change eir activity level by announcing that e\n does so, provided that a week has passed since e last\n changed eir activity level.\n\n (d) Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office,\n or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless\n the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive\n players to perform that duty or action.\n\n (e) This rule takes precedence over each other rule that\n regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a\n player may have because of eir activity level.\n\n'),(495277,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and\n inactive.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively.\n\n A player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the\n past week.\n\n Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate\n activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because\n of eir activity.\n\n'),(495278,'zefram',NULL,366,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and\n inactive.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively.\n\n A player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the\n past week.\n\n A player may, with Support and without 2 Objections, flip the\n activity of another player to inactive, if that other player has\n not made a public post in the last 30 days. A player made\n inactive by this method becomes active immediately upon eir next\n public post.\n\n Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate\n activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because\n of eir activity.\n\n'),(495279,'zefram',NULL,366,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1016 by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495280,'zefram',NULL,374,'Created as Power=1 Rule',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Players may trade points to other Players, for the purpose of \"buying\"\n Votes, Proposals, Judgements, or any other Commodity explicitly\n outlined by future rules, within the following limits:\n (a) the trade being made must be posted to the listserv\n (b) a Player may only trade a positive number of points\n (c) a Player may not trade more points than e currently has\n Commodities not explicitly declared as such via legislation (eg \"future\n considerations\" at the time of this Proposal) may not be bought or sold.\n\n'),(495281,'zefram',NULL,374,'Amended by Proposal 374',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may voluntarily transfer points to any other Player for\n any purpose, within the following limits:\n (a) the transfer must be posted to the listserv\n (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of points\n (c) a Player may not transfer more points than e currently has\n (d) a Player may not transfer points if the recipient would as a\n result have more than 90% of the points required to win.\n\n If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of points between\n two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the\n above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the\n legality or legal enforeceability of any terms of said agreement which\n do not involve such a transfer.\n\n'),(495282,'zefram',NULL,377,'Created as Power=1 Rule',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Player may have more than three Proposals up for vote at any\n given time.\n\n'),(495283,'zefram',NULL,377,'Amended',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who may make a Proposal may have up to four Proposals up\n for vote at any given time.\n\n'),(495284,'zefram',NULL,377,'Amended by Proposal 377',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be no limit on the number of Proposals a Player may\n have up for vote at any given time.\n\n'),(495285,'zefram',NULL,381,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 381 by Proposal 381',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be four classes of Crimes: Class A, Class B, Class C, and\n Class D. Each Class is more vile than the last, with Class A being the\n least vile and Class D being the most vile. Future legislation shall\n determine the punishments for each Class, as well as which actions would\n be classified as each Class. New classes more vile than Class D Crimes\n may be created by future legislation.\n\n'),(495286,'zefram',NULL,384,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 384 by Proposal 384 (Alexx), 16 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time in the week following the posting of a Judgement, any\n Player who believes that Judgement to be in error may Appeal that\n Judgement. \"In error\" includes, but is not limited to, being in\n violation of the Rules. Once a judgement has been Appealed, it may\n not be Appealed again.\n\n When a Judgement is Appealed, an Appeal Court is set up. An Appeal\n Court shall consist of an odd number of Justices greater than one.\n Unless another Rule specifies otherwise, that number shall be three.\n The Justices shall be selected in the same manner that the Rules\n provide for selecting Judges, with the following restrictions:\n 1) no Player may be selected more than once for any particular\n Appeal Court.\n 2) the Player who made the Appeal shall not be selected for that\n Appeal Court.\n 3) The Player who made the original Call For judgement which is\n being Appealed shall not be selected for that Appeal Court.\n\n After a Justice has accepted appointment, he has one week in which to\n return a Decision. If the Justice does not return a Decision in that\n time, he shall be penalized 10 points and another Player shall be\n chosen to take his place as Justice, unless a Verdict has been\n reached on that Appeal, in which case there shall be no replacement\n and he shall not be penalized.\n\n A Decision must be one of the following: (1) TO OVERRULE JUDGEMENT,\n (2) TO SUSTAIN JUDGEMENT, or (3) UNDECIDED. A Decision may be\n accompanied by reasons and arguments, but any such reasons and\n arguements form no part of the official Decision itself.\n\n A Verdict is reached based on the Decisions of the Justices. If a\n majority of the Justices return the Decision TO OVERRULE JUDGEMENT,\n then the Verdict is JUDGEMENT OVERRULED. Otherwise the Verdict is\n JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED. If enough Decisions have been returned to\n ensure one of these two Verdicts, then the Verdict is reached\n immediately; it does not wait for the remaining Justices to return a\n Decision.\n\n If the Verdict is JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED, then the Judgement in question\n stands, and the Player who Appealed the Judgement is penalized 10\n points.\n\n If the Verdict is JUDGEMENT OVERRULED, then the Judgement in question\n is changed to UNDECIDED.\n\n At any time in the week following the return of a Verdict, any Player\n may submit a Proposal that the Verdict be Reversed, i.e. JUDGEMENT\n SUSTAINED changed to JUDGEMENT OVERRULED or vice versa. In order to\n pass, such a Proposal must receive 2/3 of the Votes legally cast\n within the prescribed Voting Period; this Rule takes precedence over\n Rule 209. If the Proposal passes, the Verdict is Reversed and points\n are adjusted as if the new Verdict had been the original Verdict.\n\n'),(495287,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), 11 November 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time in the week following the return of a Judgment on a\n Call for Judgment, any Player may submit a Proposal that the\n Judgment on that statement be changed (from FALSE to TRUE; from\n TRUE to FALSE; from UNDECIDED to either TRUE or FALSE).\n In order to pass, such a Proposal must receive 3/5 of the Votes\n legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period.\n\n If the Proposal passes, the Judgment is changed accordingly and\n points are adjusted in accordance with the new Judgment.\n\n'),(495288,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended by Proposal 911 (Garth), 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three\n Players to the Public Forum.\n\n If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each\n Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer\n with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they\n desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the\n allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by\n which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement\n shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise,\n it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The\n Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the\n original CFJ.\n\n Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make\n Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them\n agree.\n\n The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that\n Statement may be made.\n\n If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is\n changed by the Justices, the Judge shall return the compensation\n e received to the Point Reserve.\n\n'),(495289,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three\n Players to the Public Forum.\n\n If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each\n Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer\n with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they\n desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the\n allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by\n which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement\n shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise,\n it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The\n Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the\n original CFJ.\n\n Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make\n Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them\n agree.\n\n The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that\n Statement may be made.\n\n If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is\n changed by the Justices, the Judge shall return the compensation\n e received to the Point Reserve.\n (*Was: 690*)\n\n'),(495290,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, 29 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three\n Players to the Public Forum.\n\n If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each\n Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer\n with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they\n desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the\n allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by\n which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the\n Scorekeepor.\n\n If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement\n shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise,\n it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The\n Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the\n original CFJ.\n\n Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make\n Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them\n agree.\n\n The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that\n Statement may be made.\n\n If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is\n changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the\n compensation e received for judging.\n (*Was: 690*)\n\n'),(495291,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1511, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If within two weeks after a Judgement is distributed to the\n Public Forum, three players post to the Public Forum their\n insistence that it be appealed, then the judgement is Appealed.\n\n If a judgement is Appealed, the Clerk of the Courts shall within\n one week report this to the Public Forum, together with the\n statement of the CFJ.\n\n When this happens, the Speaker, CotC, and Justiciar shall serve\n as Justices, judging the statement as if they were Judges. The\n Justices may confer with each other on the case before\n delivering Judgement if they desire.\n\n A Justice may appoint another willing Player to act as Justice;\n the player so appointed becomes Justice in eir place. A Justice\n who was ineligible to serve as Judge of the CFJ, or who was\n Judge of the CFJ, may not deliver judgement as Justice, but must\n instead so appoint another player, as soon as possible.\n\n No Player may deliver judgement more than once on the same CFJ;\n rather than do so as Justice e must instead appoint another\n player to act as Justice, as soon as possible.\n\n If a Justice, A, is required by the Rules to appoint another\n Player as Justice, he may do so by declaring to the CotC that e\n is unable to find another willing player to so serve; in this\n case the CotC shall as soon as possible select an eligible\n player at random to serve as Justice in place of A.\n\n The Justices shall receive the same compensation as Judges for\n each Statement so Judged.\n\n'),(495292,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n constituted to consider the Appeal and to reach a determination.\n\n A Board of Appeals shall consist of three distinct Players,\n called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts shall select the\n Justices for each Board of Appeals as follows, until three\n eligible Justices have been selected. First, the Speaker shall\n be selected, if eligible. Then, the Justiciar shall be\n selected, if eligible. Then, the Clerk of the Courts shall be\n selected, if eligible. All remaining positions on the Board (if\n any) shall then be filled by the random selection of the Clerk\n of the Courts from amongst all those Players eligible to be\n selected, as described below.\n\n A Player who has already been selected to serve on a given Board\n of Appeal is not eligible to be selected a second time for that\n Board; this does not in any way affect that Player\'s eligibility\n to serve in the first position, however.\n\n If a Board of Appeals is considering a question pertaining to a\n CFJ, then a Player shall only be eligible to be selected to\n serve on that Board of Appeals if e is eligible to be selected\n as a Judge of that CFJ. However, if this restriction would\n result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible\n to serve on that Board of Appeals, it shall not have any effect\n for that Board.\n\n If a Board of Appeals is considering a question that does not\n pertain to any one CFJ, then all Active Players (except those\n already selected) shall be eligible to be selected for that\n Board. If this would result in there being fewer than three\n Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, then\n all Players, whether or not active, shall be eligible.\n\n'),(495293,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2553, 22 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n constituted to consider the Appeal and to reach a determination.\n\n A Board of Appeals shall consist of three distinct Players,\n called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts shall select the\n Justices for each Board of Appeals as follows, until three\n eligible Justices have been selected. First, the Speaker shall\n be selected, if eligible. Then, the Justiciar shall be\n selected, if eligible. Then, the Clerk of the Courts shall be\n selected, if eligible. All remaining positions on the Board (if\n any) shall then be filled by the random selection of the Clerk\n of the Courts from amongst all those Players eligible to be\n selected, as described below.\n\n A Player who has already been selected to serve on a given Board\n of Appeal is not eligible to be selected a second time for that\n Board; this does not in any way affect that Player\'s eligibility\n to serve in the first position, however.\n\n If a Board of Appeals is considering a question pertaining to a\n CFJ, then a Player shall only be eligible to be selected to\n serve on that Board of Appeals if e was not a Judge of that CFJ,\n and is eligible to be selected as a Judge of that CFJ. However,\n if this restriction would result in there being fewer than three\n Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, it\n shall not have any effect for that Board.\n\n If a Board of Appeals is considering a question that does not\n pertain to any one CFJ, then all Active Players (except those\n already selected) shall be eligible to be selected for that\n Board. If this would result in there being fewer than three\n Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, then\n all Players, whether or not active, shall be eligible.\n\n'),(495294,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2685, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E was ineligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration, and this restriction does not\n prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the\n CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace eim as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\n'),(495295,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(7) Cosmetically by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E was ineligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration, and this restriction does not\n prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the\n CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\n'),(495296,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), 24 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration when it was called, and this\n restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from\n being selected by the CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\n'),(495297,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration, and this restriction does not\n prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the\n CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\n'),(495298,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration, and this restriction does not\n prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the\n CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n vi) E is frozen.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\n'),(495299,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible.\n d) Any remaining positions are filled by random selection by\n the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible\n Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n v) E is not Active.\n\n An Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\n'),(495300,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible.\n d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by\n the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible\n Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n v) E is not Active.\n\n An Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\n'),(495301,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any\n Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible.\n d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by\n the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible\n Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n v) E is not Active.\n\n An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\n'),(495302,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A\n Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the\n Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n\n An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\n'),(495303,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A\n Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the\n Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n\n An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall select an eligible Player to replace\n em.\n\n The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\n'),(495304,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n'),(495305,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n'),(495306,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n'),(495307,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n'),(495308,'zefram',NULL,384,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered\n open again\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior\n case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered\n open again\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n'),(495309,'zefram',NULL,385,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 385 by Proposal 385',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At any time not less than 24 hours before the end of a Voting Period\n for a given Proposal, the originator of that Proposal (and no other\n Player) may issue a \'corrected\' version of that Proposal to the\n Benevolent Speaker. This Proposal replaces the original Proposal.\n Any Votes cast on the original Proposal are discarded, as is the\n original Proposal itself; the voting for the original is never\n completed. The corrected version is issued as a new Proposal, with a\n new Number and a new Voting Period starting from its time of\n issuance. As a penalty for not getting things right the first time\n and bogging down the legislature, the correcting Player loses three\n Points upon the removal of the original Proposal.\n\n A Proposal may also simply be withdrawn by the originating Player\n during this time period, without any new Proposal replacing it, but\n the Player must still lose three Points.\n\n'),(495310,'zefram',NULL,386,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 386 by Proposal 386 (Alexx), 16 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Incumbent Officer (or Official) is any Player who has been\n Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is\n not an Officer.\n\n An Incumbent Official may be replaced by another Player (the\n \"Challenger\") if that Player makes a Proposal to replace the Officer\n with him or herself, and that Proposal passes. The action of making\n this Proposal constitutes \"Running For Office.\" The Proposal is\n treated normally, but requires at least a 2/3 affirmative Vote of all\n those Players casting legal Votes on that Proposal to pass. This\n Rule takes precedence over 209.\n\n An Officer may resign at any time, provided he or she appoints a\n successor. If an Officer resigns while a Challenger is running for\n his Office, the Officer may not appoint a successor, but instead the\n Challenger automatically becomes the new Officer. In such a case,\n the Vote for the appointment of the Challenger is rendered null and\n void.\n\n If an Office is vacant for any reason, a Player is selected randomly\n for that Office in the same way that Judges are selected.\n\n This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules\n for specific Offices.\n\n'),(495311,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), 24 November 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Official is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to\n an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer.\n An Officer may be replaced by another Player, by a Proposal\n stating so, and that Proposal passes.\n An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a\n successor.\n If an Officer resigns while a Proposal is being voted upon to\n replace eim, the Player proposed will by eis Successor.\n This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to\n Rules for specific Offices.\n Running for office\n\n'),(495312,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended by Proposal 881 (Garth), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to\n an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer.\n An Officer may be replaced by another Player if a Proposal to\n that effect passes.\n An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a\n successor.\n If an Officer resigns while a Proposal is being voted upon to\n replace eim, the Player proposed will by eis Successor.\n This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to\n Rules for specific Offices.\n\n'),(495313,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to\n an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer.\n An Officer may be replaced by another Player if a Proposal to\n that effect passes.\n An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a\n successor.\n If an Officer resigns while a Proposal is being voted upon to\n replace eim, the Player proposed will by eis Successor.\n This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to\n Rules for specific Offices.\n (*Was: 733*)\n\n'),(495314,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to\n an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer.\n\n An Officer may be replaced by another Player by a Directive to\n install that Player into the Office. The Proposal containing\n such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a\n successor.\n\n If an Officer resigns while a Referendum is being voted upon to\n replace eim, the Player thus proposed will by eis Successor.\n\n An Officer shall be appointed only if e consents.\n\n This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to\n Rules for specific Offices.\n\n'),(495315,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1582, 15 May 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically\n to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic.\n\n An Office may be created as specified by the Rules.\n A particular Office ceases to exist when there is no Rule\n specifying that Office.\n\n An Officer is any Player who fills an Office as specified in the\n Rules. No Player shall fill an Office without eir consent. When\n according to the Rules a Player fills an Office, any other\n Player previously filling that Office, if any, ceases to fill\n that Office.\n\n A Directive may be proposed to install a Player in an Office.\n A proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption\n Index of at least 1. If the Directive takes effect, then the\n Player so proposed fills the Office, if e consents.\n\n This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to\n Rules for specific Offices.\n\n'),(495316,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1699, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically\n to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic.\n\n Only those Offices specifically established by the Rules. If an\n Office ceases to be specified in the Rules, it ceases to exist.\n\n An Officer is any Player who fills an Office as specified in the\n Rules. No Player shall be required to fill an Office without\n giving consent. A Player indicates that e consents to fill an\n Office by posting to the Public Forum that e does so. To be\n binding, such a post must be made not more than one week before,\n nor more than one week after, the time that the Player is\n designated to fill the Office in question.\n\n It is forbidden for two or more Players to hold the same Office\n at the same time. If the Rules require that a specific Player\n fill an Office, any other Player who currently fills that Office\n ceases to do so simultaneously.\n\n'),(495317,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1763, 31 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically\n to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic.\n\n An Office exists only if it is specifically established by the\n Rules. If an Office ceases to be specified in the Rules, it\n ceases to exist.\n\n An Officer is any Player who fills an Office as specified in the\n Rules. No Player shall be required to fill an Office without\n giving consent. A Player indicates that e consents to fill an\n Office by posting to the Public Forum that e does so. To be\n binding, such a post must be made not more than one week before,\n nor more than one week after, the time that the Player is\n designated to fill the Office in question.\n\n It is forbidden for two or more Players to hold the same Office\n at the same time. If the Rules require that a specific Player\n fill an Office, any other Player who currently fills that Office\n ceases to do so simultaneously.\n\n'),(495318,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is a position of authority or responsibility\n established by the Rules and held by a Player, who is called an\n Officer. At any time, for each Office there shall be exactly\n one Officer who holds it.\n\n A position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if\n the Rules specifically designate it as such. An Office only\n exists as long as there is a Rule in force which specifies that\n it exists. If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of\n an Office are changed such that they no longer do so, that\n Office ceases to exist.\n\n A given Office has whatever duties, responsibilities, and\n privileges that the Rules assign to it.\n\n'),(495319,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2623, 19 June 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is a position of authority or responsibility\n established by the Rules and held by a Player, who is called an\n Officer.\n\n At any time, an Office is held by exactly one Player; if no\n other Rule directly or indirectly specifies which Player holds\n an Office, it shall be held by the Speaker.\n\n A position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if\n the Rules specifically designate it as such. An Office only\n exists as long as there is a Rule in force which specifies that\n it exists. If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of\n an Office are changed such that they no longer do so, that\n Office ceases to exist.\n\n A given Office has whatever duties, responsibilities, and\n privileges that the Rules assign to it.\n\n'),(495320,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is a position defined as such by the Rules.\n\n At any time, an Office is held by exactly one Player (called an\n Officer). If no other Rule directly or indirectly specifies\n which Player holds an Office, it shall be held by the Speaker.\n\n'),(495321,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is a position so designated by the Rules.\n\n Each Office is always held by exactly one Player (called an\n Officer). Each Office shall be held by the Speaker unless\n otherwise specified.\n\n'),(495322,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n'),(495323,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and\n the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to acheive Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is acheived.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or\n as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain offical duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495324,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and\n the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or\n as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495325,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office,\n and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495326,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office,\n and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to\n change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the\n change if consent is acheived.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495327,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to\n change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the\n change if consent is acheived.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495328,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495329,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, then the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495330,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed\n the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495331,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an officer fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a\n certain official duty, than the player who executed the order\n may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n'),(495332,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If a Timing Order directed at an office is not satisfied on\n time, or if the office is vacant, then the player who executed\n the order may perform the duty as if e held that office.\n\n'),(495333,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n'),(495334,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n'),(495335,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n'),(495336,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n'),(495337,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an office CAN resign it by announcement, causing\n it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an office\n becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least\n one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if\n another player so makes a nomination.\n\n'),(495338,'zefram',NULL,386,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an\n elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL\n make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is\n waived if another player so makes a nomination.\n\n'),(495339,'zefram',NULL,388,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 388 by Proposal 388',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a new game of Nomic is begun, the status of the new Game when it\n begins shall be the same as the status of the old Game when it ended, in\n all respects where the Rules do not decide otherwise.\n\n'),(495340,'zefram',NULL,388,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a new game of Nomic is begun, the status of the new\n Game when it begins shall be the same as the status of the old\n Game when it ended, in all respects where the Rules do not\n specify otherwise.\n\n'),(495341,'zefram',NULL,389,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 389 by Proposal 389',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If at any time a Voter does not belong to one of the Groups of Rule\n 356, it shall become a member of the Group with the fewest members.\n If two or more Groups both have fewer members than all others, the\n Voter shall be randomly placed within one of these Groups.\n\n'),(495342,'zefram',NULL,390,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 390 by Proposal 390',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Office for each of the Groups of Rule 356, known as\n the Vizier of that Group.\n\n If at any time a Group does not have a Vizier, one shall be chosen at\n random from the members of that Group.\n\n'),(495343,'zefram',NULL,391,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 391 by Proposal 391',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a new unit of currency defined for each of the Groups of\n Rule 356. These units shall be named the X Coins, where the name of\n the Group associated with the unit is substitued for X.\n\n Any Player may possess zero or more of each of these currencies. No\n Player may possess less than zero of any of these currencies.\n\n'),(495344,'zefram',NULL,391,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 391 by Proposal 626',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495345,'zefram',NULL,392,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 392 by Proposal 392',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player\'s Point total is adjusted by the Noble Speaker, or by\n another person given Point maintanence authority by future legislation,\n this change must be posted to the list by the point maintainer, as\n opposed to making the adjustment silently.\n\n Furthermore, requests by a Player, in a form other than a Call for\n Judgement to adjust the score of another Player must be posted\n directly to the list, not privately to the adjuster. If the request\n is in the form of a Call for Judgement, then the rules governing\n Calls for Judgement apply instead.\n\n Specifically:\n\n * At the beginning of the Game, the Point maintainer announces the\n starting Points of all Players.\n\n * When the announcement is made of Voting results, the Point maintainer\n must announce the number of Points gained or lost for each Proposal.\n The final score for each Voter must also be reported, but this may be\n done after a group of Voting results on the same day, rather than after\n each Vote at the discretion of the Point maintainer.\n\n * Even if a Player\'s score has not changed, all Players\' scores must be\n announced at least once per week at minimum.\n\n * If the Point maintainer applies any Rule to adjust a Player\'s score,\n the change and the new Point total must be posted to the list.\n\n * Voluntary Point Trades are posted to the list by the giver, as\n provided for by Rule 327. The Point maintainer acknowledges this by\n verifying the amount of the Trade as well as the new Point totals\n for the relevant Players.\n\n * If a Player feels that a Player\'s Points should be adjusted (by\n applying some penalty or reward clause, say) he posts a message to\n the list stating the affected Player, the Point change, and the reason.\n The Point maintainter will acknowlege this to the list, stating the\n decision made, and if an adjustment is made, the Player\'s new score.\n If the request was in the form of a Call for Judgement, the Rules for\n Calls for Judgement apply instead.\n\n In general, all requests to the Point maintainer to adjust Points must\n be posted publicly to the list, not in private. And all decisions by\n the Point maintainer must be accompanied by the Player\'s name, the\n amount of the change, and the new Point total for the Player.\n\n'),(495346,'zefram',NULL,392,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 392 by Proposal 392',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Player\'s Point total is adjusted by the Noble Speaker, or by\n another person given Point maintanence authority by future legislation,\n this change must be posted to the list by the point maintainer, as\n opposed to making the adjustment silently.\n\n Furthermore, requests by a Player, in a form other than a call for\n Judgement to adjust the score of another Player must be posted\n directly to the list, not privately to the adjuster. If the request\n is in the form of a Call for Judgement, then the rules governing\n Calls for Judgement apply instead.\n\n Specifically:\n\n * At the beginning of the Game, the Point maintainer announces the\n starting Points of all Players.\n\n * When the announcement is made of Voting results, the Point maintainer\n must announce the number of Points gained or lost for each Proposal.\n The final score for each Voter must also be reported, but this may be\n done after a group of Voting results on the same day, rather than after\n each Vote at the discretion of the Point maintainer.\n\n * Even if a Player\'s score has not changed, all Players\' scores must be\n announced at least once per week at minimum.\n\n * If the Point maintainer applies any Rule to adjust a Player\'s score,\n the change and the new Point total must be posted to the list.\n\n * Voluntary Point Trades are posted to the list by the giver, as\n provided for by Rule 327. The Point maintainer acknowledges this by\n verifying the amount of the Trade as well as the new Point totals\n for the relevant Players.\n\n * If a Player feels that a Player\'s Points should be adjusted (by\n applying some penalty or reward clause, say) he posts a message to\n the list stating the affected Player, the Point change, and the reason.\n The Point maintainter will acknowlege this to the list, stating the\n decision made, and if an adjustment is made, the Player\'s new score.\n If the request was in the form of a Call for Judgement, the Rules for\n Calls for Judgement apply instead.\n\n In general, all requests to the Point maintainer to adjust Points must\n be posted publicly to the list, not in private. And all decisions by\n the Point maintainer must be accompanied by the Player\'s name, the\n amount of the change, and the new Point total for the Player.\n\n'),(495347,'zefram',NULL,394,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 394 by Proposal 394, 23 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Proposal is made that is wider than 80 characters or longer\n than 25 lines, its proposer shall be penalized 2 extra Points.\n Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, its proposer\n shall be rewarded 1 extra Point.\n\n'),(495348,'zefram',NULL,394,'Amended by Proposal 659, 29 October 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Proposal is submitted which contains more than 70\n characters on a single line or longer than 25 lines, the Player\n to propose that Proposal shall lose two Points. Whenever a\n Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, the Player to\n propose that Proposal shall recieve one Point.\n\n'),(495349,'zefram',NULL,394,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1406, 29 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Proposal is submitted which is longer than 25 lines,\n the Proposer (i.e., the Player to propose that Proposal) shall\n lose two Points. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer\n than 10 lines, the Proposer shall receive one Point.\n\n Whenever a Proposal is submitted which contains text intended to\n become part of a Rule, if any part of that text contains more\n than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading\n whitespace which is common to all lines of that text), the\n Proposer shall lose two Points.\n\n'),(495350,'zefram',NULL,394,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Proposal is submitted which is longer than 25 lines,\n the Proposer (i.e., the Player to propose that Proposal) shall\n lose 2 Marks. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer\n than 10 lines, the Proposer shall receive 1 Mark.\n\n Whenever a Proposal is submitted which contains text intended to\n become part of a Rule, if any part of that text contains more\n than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading\n whitespace which is common to all lines of that text), the\n Proposer shall lose 2 Marks.\n\n The Promotor shall detect and report any transfer of Currency\n which takes place under the authority of this Rule, and shall do\n so no later than the time e distributes the Proposals which\n caused such transfers.\n\n'),(495351,'zefram',NULL,394,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1722, 6 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The act of submitting a Proposal which is longer than 25\n lines is an Infraction, the penalty for which is 2 Marks.\n\n The act of submitting a Proposal containing text intended to\n become part of a Rule such that any part of that text contains\n more than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any\n leading whitespace which is common to all lines of that text) is\n an Infraction, the penalty for which is 2 Marks.\n\n The Promotor shall detect and report these Infractions.\n\n'),(495352,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor.\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current\n Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.\n\n So long as the Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not\n required to maintain or distribute the Rules. The Rulekeepor\'s\n salary shall be 5 points per week, if e is constrained by Rules\n defining the \"Logical Rule Set Format\".\n (*Was: 399*)\n\n'),(495353,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor.\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current\n Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.\n\n So long as the Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not\n required to maintain or distribute the Rules. The Rulekeepor\'s\n salary shall be 5 points per week, if e is constrained by Rules\n defining the \"Logical Rule Set Format\".\n\n'),(495354,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2048, 19 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor.\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current\n Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary of 5 Points.\n\n'),(495355,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor.\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current\n Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary of 5 Mils.\n\n'),(495356,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current\n Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.\n\n'),(495357,'zefram',NULL,399,'Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current\n Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week.\n\n'),(495358,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At\n least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Logical Ruleset\n to the Public Forum.\n\n'),(495359,'zefram',NULL,399,'Infected and Amended(8) Substantially by Rule 1454, 27 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At\n least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Logical Ruleset\n to the Public Forum.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495360,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), 15 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At\n least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Short Logical\n Ruleset to the Public Forum. At least once a month, the\n Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public\n Forum.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495361,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At\n least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Short Logical\n Ruleset to the Public Forum. At least once a month, the\n Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public\n Forum.\n\n'),(495362,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), 30 January 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The\n Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor\'s Official\n Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical\n Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month.\n\n'),(495363,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer\n Salary.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The\n Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor\'s Official\n Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical\n Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month.\n\n'),(495364,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Office of the Rulekeepor\n\n There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor\n shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The\n Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor\'s Official\n Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical\n Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month.\n\n'),(495365,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility it\n is to maintain a list of all Rules. The Rulekeepor\'s Report\n includes the Short Logical Ruleset.\n\n'),(495366,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility it\n is to maintain a list of all the Rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. Eir\n Monthly Report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.\n\n'),(495367,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report shall include the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n'),(495368,'zefram',NULL,399,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n'),(495369,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1421, 7 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a position known as the Speaker-Elect. Only\n Voters may be Speaker-Elect; whenever a Rule specifies that the\n Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e shall cease to be\n Speaker-Elect. Only one Voter may be Speaker-Elect at any one\n time. A Voter may not become Speaker-Elect except as specified\n in the Rules. The position of Speaker-Elect is not an Office.\n\n Whenever there is a Speaker-Elect:\n\n 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials\n for the performance of his position, as soon as possible to\n the Speaker-Elect.\n 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said\n materials as soon as possible after step 1.\n 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a\n message to the Public Forum announcing that the\n Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the \"Date:\" of the\n Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall become a Voter and\n the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.\n\n If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this\n procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.\n\n If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes\n Speaker before the completion of step 3, then this Rule defers\n to it, and the procedure above need not be completed.\n\n'),(495370,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be a position known as the Speaker-Elect. Only\n Voters may be Speaker-Elect; whenever a Rule specifies that the\n Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e shall cease to be\n Speaker-Elect. Only one Voter may be Speaker-Elect at any one\n time. A Voter may not become Speaker-Elect except as specified\n in the Rules. The position of Speaker-Elect is not an Office.\n\n Whenever there is a Speaker-Elect:\n\n 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials\n for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to\n the Speaker-Elect.\n 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said\n materials as soon as possible after step 1.\n 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a\n message to the Public Forum announcing that the\n Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the \"Date:\" of the\n Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall become a Voter and\n the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.\n\n If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this\n procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.\n\n If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes\n Speaker before the completion of step 3, then this Rule defers\n to it, and the procedure above need not be completed.\n\n'),(495371,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever the Rules call for the Speaker-Elect to become Speaker:\n\n 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials\n for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to\n the Speaker-Elect.\n 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said\n materials as soon as possible after step 1.\n 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a\n message to the Public Forum announcing that the\n Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the \"Date:\" of\n the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be\n Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.\n\n If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this\n procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.\n\n If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes\n Speaker before the completion of step 3, such as the case when\n the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this\n Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be\n completed.\n\n However, in any case where the above procedure is not completed\n before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is\n still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all\n materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the\n former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker\n shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from\n other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.)\n\n'),(495372,'zefram',NULL,402,'Infected and Amended(4) Substantially by Rule 1454, 23 February 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever the Rules call for the Speaker-Elect to become Speaker:\n\n 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials\n for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to\n the Speaker-Elect.\n 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said\n materials as soon as possible after step 1.\n 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a\n message to the Public Forum announcing that the\n Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the \"Date:\" of\n the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be\n Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.\n\n If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this\n procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.\n\n If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes\n Speaker before the completion of step 3, such as the case when\n the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this\n Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be\n completed.\n\n However, in any case where the above procedure is not completed\n before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is\n still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all\n materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the\n former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker\n shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from\n other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.)\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495373,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever the Rules call for the Speaker-Elect to become Speaker:\n\n 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials\n for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to\n the Speaker-Elect.\n 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said\n materials as soon as possible after step 1.\n 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a\n message to the Public Forum announcing that the\n Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the \"Date:\" of\n the Speaker\'s posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be\n Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker.\n\n If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this\n procedure, it must be begun again from step 1.\n\n If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes\n Speaker before the completion of step 3, such as the case when\n the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this\n Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be\n completed.\n\n However, in any case where the above procedure is not completed\n before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is\n still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all\n materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the\n former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker\n shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from\n other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.)\n\n'),(495374,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), 9 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition\n commences, the Registrar shall post to the Public Forum a\n Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the\n Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect\n at the time the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\n'),(495375,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), 14 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition\n commences, the Payroll Clerk shall post to the Public Forum a\n Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the\n Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect\n at the time the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\n'),(495376,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), 21 August 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition\n commences, the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall post to the\n Public Forum a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the\n reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of\n Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\n'),(495377,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences,\n the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall publish a Notice of\n Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition\n and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time\n the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\n'),(495378,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences,\n the Assistant Director of Personnel shall publish a Notice of\n Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition\n and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time\n the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\n'),(495379,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the\n Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds\n as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a\n result of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition\n commences, the Associate Director of Personnel shall\n publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the\n reason for the Transition and the Player who held the\n Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition\n commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\n'),(495380,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current\n Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.\n\n While there is a pope, no other player may become a pope.\n Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e ceases being a pope.\n\n A notice of papal succession declares that a specified player is\n a pope. The notice is valid only if it is published by the\n Associate Director of Personnel and the specified player is\n indeed a pope.\n\n Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession, the\n current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the new\n Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope.\n\n'),(495381,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current\n Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.\n\n When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately\n ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e\n immediately ceases being a pope.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that\n e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a\n pope, so please treat em right good forever.\n\n A notice of papal succession is a notice published by the\n Associate Director of Personnel, that declares that a specified\n player is a pope, and is valid if the named player is indeed a\n pope. Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession,\n the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the\n new Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope.\n\n'),(495382,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current\n Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that\n e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a\n pope, so please treat em right good forever.\n\n When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately\n ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e\n immediately ceases being a pope.\n\n As soon as possible after a cardinal becomes a pope, the\n Associate Director of Personnel shall install that pope as\n Speaker, by announcement. Upon this announcement, if the player\n is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker,\n and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a\n pope.\n\n This installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved\n challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the\n legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days\n of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even\n if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its\n holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then\n installation may be performed by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495383,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that\n e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a\n pope, so please treat em right good forever.\n\n When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately\n ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e\n immediately ceases being a pope.\n\n Any Player who is not a pope may install the pope as Speaker, by\n announcement. Upon this announcement, if the announced player\n is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker,\n and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a\n pope.\n\n This installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved\n challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the\n legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days\n of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even\n if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n'),(495384,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce\n that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this\n announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em\n right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as\n the new Speaker.\n\n If the legality of an installation is not challenged within\n seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to\n stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if a Player becomes\n Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the\n Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.\n\n'),(495385,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce\n that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this\n announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em\n right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as\n the new Speaker.\n\n If the legality of an installation is not challenged within\n seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to\n stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if a Player becomes\n Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the\n Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.\n\n If no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge\n finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive,\n unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal\n may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran\n Consent. This is not considered winning.\n\n'),(495386,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce\n that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this\n announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em\n right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as\n the new Speaker.\n\n If the legality of an installation is not challenged within\n seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to\n stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if a Player becomes\n Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the\n Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.\n\n If no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge\n finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive,\n unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal\n may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran\n Consent. This is not considered winning.\n\n'),(495387,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n'),(495388,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of\n this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora.\n Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on\n behalf of the speaker.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n'),(495389,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of\n this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora.\n Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on\n behalf of the speaker.\n\n'),(495390,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n'),(495391,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently won the game.\n\n'),(495392,'zefram',NULL,402,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n'),(495393,'zefram',NULL,404,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 404 by Proposal 404 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the\n time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act\n of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content.\n It is legal to propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules\n or with itself, which is paradoxical, or which cannot be\n applied.\n\n'),(495394,'zefram',NULL,404,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 404 by Proposal 404 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time\n of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making\n such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content. It is legal to\n propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules or with itself, which\n is paradoxical, or which cannot be applied.\n\n'),(495395,'zefram',NULL,404,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2689, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the\n time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act\n of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content.\n It is legal to propose a Rule Change which cannot be applied,\n or which, if adopted, would result in there being Rules which\n conflict with other Rules or with themselves, which are\n paradoxical, or which cannot be applied.\n\n'),(495396,'zefram',NULL,404,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 2832 (Steve), 11 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Rule shall have any effect which seeks to make the legality\n of making a Proposal conditional upon its content.\n\n'),(495397,'zefram',NULL,404,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 404 by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495398,'zefram',NULL,405,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 405 by Proposal 405 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Officer may be \'On Hold\' while holding an Office. If a\n current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to\n have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office\n should be re-filled in the normal manner. This Rule takes\n precedence over Rule 386.\n\n'),(495399,'zefram',NULL,405,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 405 by Proposal 405 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Officer may be \'On Hold\' while holding an Office. If a current\n Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned\n without appointing a successor, and the Office should be re-filled in\n the normal manner. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 386.\n\n'),(495400,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended by Proposal 880 (Garth), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Officer may be \'On Hold\' while holding an Office. If a\n current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to\n have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office\n should be re-filled in the normal manner.\n\n'),(495401,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Officer may be \'On Hold\' while holding an Office. If a\n current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to\n have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office\n should be re-filled in the normal manner.\n (*Was: 405*)\n\n'),(495402,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1582, 15 May 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message\n to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise\n specified in the Rules.\n\n When an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that\n Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a\n Proposal containing a Directive to install another player in\n that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will\n fill the Office.\n\n Otherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then\n the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office.\n If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not\n consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant.\n\n No player who is \"On Hold\" may fill an Office. If an Officer\n goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices.\n\n'),(495403,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1631, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message\n to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise\n specified in the Rules.\n\n When an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that\n Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a\n Proposal containing a Directive to install another player in\n that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will\n fill the Office.\n\n Otherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then\n the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office.\n If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not\n consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant.\n\n No player who is \"On Hold\" may fill an Office. If an Officer\n goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices.\n\n This Rule applies to Offices in General, and thus defers to\n Rules regarding specific Offices.\n\n'),(495404,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer is permitted to, at any time, remove eirself from any\n Office e holds, provided e specifies another Player to succeed\n em, who then becomes the temporary holder of that Office. For\n this appointment to be valid, this Player must either explicitly\n and publically consent to becoming the new holder of that Office\n within seven days of such appointment, or be the Speaker. The\n Speaker can be appointed to hold an Office temporarily without\n consenting, and may not refuse such an appointment.\n\n A change in the identity of the Speaker does not automatically\n cause the transfer of any Offices being held by the former\n Speaker to the new Speaker.\n\n'),(495405,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 2781 (Steve), 15 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer is always permitted to resign from any Office e\n holds, provided e specifies another Player to succeed\n em, who then becomes the temporary holder of that Office. For\n this appointment to be valid, this Player must either explicitly\n and publically consent to becoming the new holder of that Office\n within seven days of such appointment, or be the Speaker. The\n Speaker can be appointed to hold an Office temporarily without\n consenting, and may not refuse such an appointment. An Officer\n who resigns without appointing a successor is deemed to have\n appointed the Speaker to succeed em.\n\n A change in the identity of the Speaker does not automatically\n cause the transfer of any Offices being held by the former\n Speaker to the new Speaker.\n\n'),(495406,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may, at any time, resign from any Office which e\n currently holds.\n\n An Electee to an Office who resigns from that Office may\n appoint a successor at the time e resigns. In this case,\n the resigning Player is retired from that Office; if the\n named successor agrees in the Public Forum to be successor\n to the Office, the named successor becomes holder of the\n Office.\n\n A non-Electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee who\n does not name a successor, is immediately removed from\n Office.\n\n'),(495407,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may, at any time, resign from any Office which e\n currently holds.\n\n An Electee to an Office who resigns from that Office may\n appoint a successor at the time e resigns. In this case,\n the resigning Player is retired from that Office; if the\n named successor agrees publicly to be successor to the Office,\n the named successor becomes holder of the Office.\n\n A non-Electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee who\n does not name a successor, is immediately removed from\n Office.\n\n'),(495408,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An oligarch or the holder of an office may resign from eir\n position at any time by announcing that e does so.\n\n The electee to an office may appoint another player as a\n successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is\n retired from that office, and if within one week from the\n appointment the named succcessor publicly agrees to be successor\n to the office, that player becomes holder of the office.\n\n An oligarch may appoint another player as a successor when e\n resigns. If so, the resigning player is removed from the\n Oligarchy, and if within one week from the appointment the named\n successsor publicly agrees to be successor to the seat in the\n Oligarchy and pays a fee of 1 Voting Entitlement, that player\n becomes an Oligarch.\n\n A non-electee who resigns or an electee who does not name a\n successor is immediately removed from office. An oligarch who\n does not name a successor is immediately removed from the\n Oligarchy.\n\n'),(495409,'zefram',NULL,405,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4271 (Murphy), 22 March 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The holder of an Office may resign from it by announcing that e\n does so.\n\n If the holder of an Office is its Electee, and appoints a\n successor when e resigns, then:\n\n (a) The resigning Player is retired from that Office.\n (b) If the successor consents within a week, then e becomes\n holder of that Office.\n (c) If the successor does not consent within a week, then the\n resigning Player is removed from that Office.\n\n Otherwise, the resigning Player is immediately removed from that\n Office.\n\n'),(495410,'zefram',NULL,405,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 880 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495411,'zefram',NULL,406,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 406 by Proposal 406 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office \"Clerk of the Courts\", who shall\n have general responsibility over administering Calls for\n Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. The active Clerk of the\n Court may never be selected as a Judge.\n\n As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5\n points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting\n from his assumption of the Office.\n\n The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who\n submitted this Proposal.\n\n'),(495412,'zefram',NULL,406,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 406 by Proposal 406 (Alexx), 3 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office \"Clerk of the Courts\", who shall have\n general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as\n outlined in the Rules. The active Clerk of the Court may never be\n selected as a Judge.\n\n As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at\n the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his\n assumption of the Office.\n\n The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted\n this Proposal.\n\n'),(495413,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended by Proposal 889 (Garth), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office \"Clerk of the Courts\", who shall\n have general responsibility over administering Calls for\n Judgement, as outlined in the Rules.\n\n As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5\n points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting\n from his assumption of the Office.\n\n The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who\n submitted this Proposal.\n\n'),(495414,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office \"Clerk of the Courts\", who shall\n have general responsibility over administering Calls for\n Judgement, as outlined in the Rules.\n\n As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5\n points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting\n from his assumption of the Office.\n\n The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who\n submitted this Proposal.\n (*Was: 406*)\n\n'),(495415,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1441, 21 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office \"Clerk of the Courts\", who shall\n have general responsibility over administering Calls for\n Judgement, as outlined in the Rules.\n\n The Clerk\'s salary shall be five points.\n\n'),(495416,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of the Clerk of the Courts, with\n the general responsibility for the administration of the\n judicial process, as described elsewhere.\n\n The Salary of the Clerk of the Courts shall be five Points.\n\n'),(495417,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of the Clerk of the Courts, with\n the general responsibility for the administration of the\n judicial process, as described elsewhere.\n\n The Salary of the Clerk of the Courts shall be five Mils.\n\n'),(495418,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The\n Clerk of the Courts shall receive a weekly salary equal to\n 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n'),(495419,'zefram',NULL,406,'Null-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The\n Clerk of the Courts shall receive a weekly salary equal to\n 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n'),(495420,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The\n Clerk of the Courts shall receive a salary equal to\n 2 times the Basic Officer Salary.\n\n'),(495421,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Clerk of the Courts\n\n There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk\n of the Courts shall receive a salary as set in the last\n Treasuror\'s budget.\n\n'),(495422,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Clerk of the Courts, whose\n responsibility it is to oversee the judicial system.\n\n'),(495423,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Clerk of the Courts, whose\n responsibility it is to oversee the judicial system.\n\n The Monthly Report of the Clerk of the Courts shall include the\n Stare Decisis, which is a list of past Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs). The following information shall be included for each\n CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the Clerk shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may, Without\n Objection, remove any CFJ from the list that e deems no longer\n relevant.\n\n'),(495424,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n'),(495425,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n'),(495426,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following:\n (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n'),(495427,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n'),(495428,'zefram',NULL,406,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n'),(495429,'zefram',NULL,406,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 889 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495430,'zefram',NULL,417,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n That there be established an office known as the Nomic\n Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules\n concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic\n Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of\n Proposals, to maintain a \"historical record\" (defined below)\n of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case\n histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.\n The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as\n they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited\n from the historical material. Where the material being stored\n does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist\n is free to design one themselves.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n The duties required of the Archivist may be changed with their\n consent and at the request of the Office\'s controlling body\n (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of\n this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the\n duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players\n \"speaking\" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for\n Offices may establish a different controlling body for this\n Office.\n\n The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its\n controlling body. Eis salary shall be 5 points\n\n'),(495431,'zefram',NULL,417,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n That there be established an office known as the Nomic\n Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules\n concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic\n Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of\n Proposals, to maintain a \"historical record\" (defined below)\n of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case\n histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.\n The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as\n they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited\n from the historical material. Where the material being stored\n does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist\n is free to design one themselves.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n The duties required of the Archivist may be changed with eir\n consent and at the request of the Office\'s controlling body\n (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of\n this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the\n duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players\n \"speaking\" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for\n Offices may establish a different controlling body for this\n Office.\n\n The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its\n controlling body. Eir salary shall be 5 points.\n\n'),(495432,'zefram',NULL,417,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall\n be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The\n initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the\n passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a \"historical\n record\" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of\n Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of\n game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on\n the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must\n be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the\n material being stored does not already admit a classification\n method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its\n controlling body. Eir salary shall be 5 points.\n\n'),(495433,'zefram',NULL,417,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall\n be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties\n of the Archivist shall be as follows:\n\n * to record the passage and failure of Proposals,\n\n * to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes\n all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset,\n annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and\n what Proposals or Rules enacted them.\n\n * to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,\n\n * to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and\n\n * to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.\n\n The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e\n sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the\n historical material. The Archivist is free to design a\n classification method for the material e stores.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n The salary of the Archivist shall be 5 points.\n\n'),(495434,'zefram',NULL,417,'Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall\n be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties\n of the Archivist shall be as follows:\n\n * to record the passage and failure of Proposals,\n\n * to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes\n all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset,\n annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and\n what Proposals or Rules enacted them.\n\n * to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,\n\n * to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and\n\n * to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.\n\n The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e\n sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the\n historical material. The Archivist is free to design a\n classification method for the material e stores.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n The salary of the Archivist shall be 5 points.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495435,'zefram',NULL,417,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall\n be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties\n of the Archivist shall be as follows:\n\n * to record the passage and failure of Proposals,\n\n * to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes\n all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset,\n annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and\n what Proposals or Rules enacted them.\n\n * to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,\n\n * to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and\n\n * to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.\n\n The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e\n sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the\n historical material. The Archivist is free to design a\n classification method for the material e stores.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n The salary of the Archivist shall be 5 Mils.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495436,'zefram',NULL,417,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows:\n\n i) to record the passage and failure of Proposals,\n\n ii) to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which\n includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora\n Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in\n effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.\n\n iii) to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,\n\n iv) to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and\n\n v) to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.\n\n The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e\n sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the\n historical material. The Archivist is free to design a\n classification method for the material e stores.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n'),(495437,'zefram',NULL,417,'Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows:\n\n i) to record the passage and failure of Proposals,\n\n ii) to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which\n includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora\n Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in\n effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them.\n\n iii) to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories,\n\n iv) to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and\n\n v) to maintain a list of game Winners in past games.\n\n The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e\n sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the\n historical material. The Archivist is free to design a\n classification method for the material e stores.\n\n The \"historical record\" of the Ruleset maintained by the\n Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora\n Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate,\n whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has\n no legal force.\n\n'),(495438,'zefram',NULL,417,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495439,'zefram',NULL,430,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 430 by Proposal 430 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 13 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge who delivers a legal Judgement within the mandated time\n receives 3 Points.\n\n'),(495440,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended by Proposal 502 (Ronald Kunne), 30 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision\n within the mandated time receives 3 Points.\n A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision\n within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra.\n\n'),(495441,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1501, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision\n within the mandated time receives 3 Points and loses 1 Blot.\n A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision\n within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra, and loses 1 more Blot.\n\n Blot losses due to this rule do not apply if they would reduce\n the Judge\'s Blots below one. It is the Judge\'s responsibility\n to report eir Blot losses to the Tabulator.\n\n'),(495442,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision\n within the mandated time receives 3 Points and loses 1 Blot.\n A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision\n within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra, and loses 1 more Blot.\n\n Blot losses due to this rule do not apply if they would reduce\n the Judge\'s Blots below one. It is the Judge\'s responsibility\n to report eir Blot losses to the Tabulator.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur\n as a result of this Rule.\n\n'),(495443,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All judicial salaries shall be paid by transfer from the Bank at\n the end of the Nomic Week. The Clerk of the Courts shall,\n whenever a Player has earned a judicial salary, make a report of\n this fact in the Public Forum. At the end of the Nomic Week,\n all judicial salaries earned during that week, except as noted\n below, shall be paid; transfers arising from such payment are to\n be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n The above notwithstanding, any judicial salary earned but not\n yet paid shall not be paid if the decision for which the salary\n was earned is currently subject to an appeal at the end of the\n Nomic Week in which it was earned. In this case, the salary\n shall be paid at the end of the Nomic Week in which the appeal\n is decided, and then only if the appeal upholds the original\n decision.\n\n If a decision is overturned in the same Nomic Week in which it\n was made, no salary shall be paid for the original decision.\n\n If a decision is not subject to an appeal at the end of the\n Nomic Week in which it is made, but is subsequently appealed in\n a later Nomic Week and overturned on appeal, the Player who made\n the original decision shall lose currency equal to the salary\n originally received for that decision. This shall be reported\n along with all other judicial salaries for that Nomic Week by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(495444,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts shall, whenever a Player has earned a\n judicial salary, make a report of this fact in the Public Forum.\n At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Clerk of the Court\n shall pay out the judicial salaries earned during the preceding\n week, except as noted below.\n\n Any judicial salary earned but not yet paid shall not be paid if\n the decision for which the salary was earned is currently\n subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it\n was earned. In this case, the salary shall be paid at the end\n of the Nomic Week in which the appeal is decided, and then only\n if the appeal upholds the original decision.\n\n If a decision is overturned in the same Nomic Week in which it\n was made, no salary shall be paid for the original decision.\n\n If a decision is not subject to an appeal at the end of the\n Nomic Week in which it is made, but is subsequently appealed in\n a later Nomic Week and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the\n Court shall vacate the Payment Order paying the salary\n originally received for that decision.\n\n'),(495445,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3635 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a\n Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to\n that Player.\n\n If a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning\n a Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed and overturned on\n appeal, the Clerk of the Court shall vacate the Payment Order\n paying the salary originally received for that decision.\n\n'),(495446,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a\n Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to\n that Player.\n\n If a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning\n a Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed and overturned on\n appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall vacate the Payment Order\n paying the salary originally received for that decision.\n\n'),(495447,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a\n Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to\n that Player.\n\n If a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning\n a Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed and overturned on\n appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall bill that Player for an\n amount equal to the Judicial Salary paid to that Player.\n\n'),(495448,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the\n Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out the\n Judicial Salary to the Judge.\n\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is overturned on appeal,\n the Clerk of the Courts shall bill the Judge for the Judicial\n Salary (if any) that was paid out to em for that Judgement.\n\n'),(495449,'zefram',NULL,430,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the\n Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall award the\n Judge the Boon of Wisdom.\n\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is overturned on appeal,\n the Clerk of the Courts shall award the Judge the Albatross of\n Foolishness.\n\n'),(495450,'zefram',NULL,430,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 502 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495451,'zefram',NULL,434,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 948 (Stella?), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495452,'zefram',NULL,435,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 435 by Proposal 435 (Alexx), 30 August 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Spelling errors do not invalidate Rules if there is no\n ambiguity in meaning.\n\n'),(495453,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), 1 December 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the\n substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,\n are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long\n as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning\n or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by\n such discrepancies.\n\n'),(495454,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended by Rule 750, 1 December 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the\n substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,\n are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long\n as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning\n or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by\n such discrepancies.\n (*Was: 435*)\n\n'),(495455,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the\n substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,\n are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long\n as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning\n or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by\n such discrepancies.\n\n'),(495456,'zefram',NULL,435,'Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 17 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the\n substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,\n are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long\n as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning\n or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by\n such discrepancies.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495457,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the\n substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,\n are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long\n as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning\n or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by\n such discrepancies.\n\n'),(495458,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), 27 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the\n substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,\n are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long\n as there is no ambiguity in meaning. A Player shall not be\n penalised for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement,\n Judgement, the words of another Player, or other reference.\n\n Except when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any\n mathematical term in the Rules shall be construed to have its\n standard mathematical meaning. In particular, \"number\" shall\n mean \"real number\".\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies\n terminology or grammar.\n\n'),(495459,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the\n Fora.\n\n (2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule,\n Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another\n reference.\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (3) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (4) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted\n as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language\n synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. In\n particular, the term \"number\" shall be interpreted as \"real\n number\".\n\n (5) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall\n be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those\n contexts.\n\n (6) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language\n meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n'),(495460,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted\n as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language\n synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall\n be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those\n contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language\n meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n'),(495461,'zefram',NULL,435,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n'),(495462,'zefram',NULL,450,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 450 by Proposal 450 (Alexx), 10 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only\n within the context of the current Game of Nomic, such as Points,\n Votes, etc. may *not* be changed by any action other than those\n specified by the Rules.\n\n'),(495463,'zefram',NULL,450,'Amended by Proposal 1011, 5 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists\n only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes,\n Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any\n action other than those specified by the Rules.\n\n No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same\n name or nickname.\n\n'),(495464,'zefram',NULL,450,'Amended by Rule 750, 5 September 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists\n only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes,\n Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any\n action other than those specified by the Rules.\n\n No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same\n name or nickname.\n (*Was: 450*)\n\n'),(495465,'zefram',NULL,450,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists\n only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes,\n Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any\n action other than those specified by the Rules.\n\n No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same\n name or nickname.\n\n'),(495466,'zefram',NULL,450,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2546, 22 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No property of any entity shall be changed except in accordance\n with procedures specified by the Rules, when that entity\n possesses that property solely by the virtue of the Rules\n defining that property.\n\n'),(495467,'zefram',NULL,450,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2630, 4 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Nomic Property\" is any property of any entity which that\n entity possesses solely by the virtue of the Rules defining that\n property.\n\n No Nomic Property shall be changed except in accordance with\n procedures specified by the Rules.\n\n'),(495468,'zefram',NULL,450,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3900 (Elysion), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Nomic Property is any property of any entity the value of\n which is defined by the Rules. Other Rules may define\n procedures by which the value of a Nomic Property may be\n changed.\n\n'),(495469,'zefram',NULL,450,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1011 by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495470,'zefram',NULL,452,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 452 by Proposal 452, 10 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a\n vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the\n Vote on that Proposal. Violations of this Rule shall be\n considered a Class C Crime.\n\n'),(495471,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1584, 15 May 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the\n vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e\n is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the\n vote on that Proposal.\n\n If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is\n found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain\n three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the\n responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ.\n\n'),(495472,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1686, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the\n vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e\n is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the\n vote on that Proposal. However, the Assessor may at eir\n discretion post to the Public Forum a list of all Players who\n have already voted on a Proposal.\n\n If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is\n found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain\n three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the\n responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ.\n\n'),(495473,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(6) by Proposal 1718, 19 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n During the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor\n may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal which e would not have were e not the Assessor, in an\n attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal.\n However, the Assessor may at eir discretion post to the Public\n Forum a list of all Players who have already voted on the\n Proposal.\n\n If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is\n found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain\n three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the\n responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ.\n\n'),(495474,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(7) by Proposal 1752, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, the Assessor\n is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current\n status of the vote on that Proposal which e would not have were\n e not the Assessor, in any attempt to influence the result of\n the vote on the Proposal. Doing so is a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Assessor from posting, at\n any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who\n have already voted upon a given Proposal. Doing so is not a\n Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule.\n\n'),(495475,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2588, 1 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as\n any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of\n tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence\n this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor\n with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player\n (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote\n Collector in an Election or Referendum.\n\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or\n Referendum, the Vote Collector is prohibited from making use of\n any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have were e\n not the Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result\n of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so\n is a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from\n posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those\n Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election\n or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as\n such by another Rule.\n\n'),(495476,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(9) by Proposal 2771 (elJefe), 19 December 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as\n any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of\n tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence\n this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor\n with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player\n (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote\n Collector in an Election or Referendum.\n\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or\n Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that\n Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use\n of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e\n not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the\n result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum.\n Doing so is a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring\n voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a\n Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from\n posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those\n Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election\n or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as\n such by another Rule.\n\n'),(495477,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(10) Cosmetically by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as\n any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of\n tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence\n this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor\n with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player\n (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote\n Collector in an Election or Referendum.\n\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or\n Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that\n Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use\n of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e\n not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the\n result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum.\n Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring\n voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a\n Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from\n posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those\n Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election\n or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as\n such by another Rule.\n\n'),(495478,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(11) Substantially by Proposal 3519 (Steve), 23 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as\n any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of\n tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence\n this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor\n with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player\n (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote\n Collector in an Election or Referendum.\n\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or\n Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that\n Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use\n of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e\n not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the\n result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum.\n Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring\n voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a\n Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from\n posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those\n Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they\n are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum, as\n long as e does not indicate specifically whether the Voting\n Entity has voted or declared Presence. Doing so is not a Crime,\n unless specified as such by another Rule.\n\n'),(495479,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(12) Substantially by Proposal 3610 (Steve), 9 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as\n any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of\n tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence\n this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor\n with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player\n (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote\n Collector in an Election or Referendum.\n\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or\n Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that\n Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use\n of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e\n not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the\n result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum.\n Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring\n voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a\n Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from\n posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those\n Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they\n are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a\n vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the\n Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the\n Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity\n has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise,\n the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating\n whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The\n publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime,\n unless specified as such by another Rule.\n\n'),(495480,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(13) by Proposal 3758 (Steve), 19 June 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as\n any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of\n tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence\n this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor\n with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player\n (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote\n Collector in an Election or Referendum.\n\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or\n Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that\n Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use\n of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e\n not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the\n result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum.\n Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring\n voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a\n Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from\n posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those\n Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they\n are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a\n vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the\n Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the\n Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity\n has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise,\n the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating\n whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The\n publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime,\n unless specified as such by another Rule.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two\n months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this\n paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495481,'zefram',NULL,452,'Amended(14) by Rule 452, 19 August 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as\n any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of\n tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence\n this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor\n with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player\n (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote\n Collector in an Election or Referendum.\n\n During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or\n Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that\n Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use\n of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that\n Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e\n not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the\n result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum.\n Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring\n voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a\n Crime.\n\n This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from\n posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those\n Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they\n are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a\n vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the\n Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the\n Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity\n has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise,\n the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating\n whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The\n publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime,\n unless specified as such by another Rule.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two\n months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this\n paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months\n after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall\n be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495482,'zefram',NULL,452,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 452 by Proposal 3785 (Steve), 2 September 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495483,'zefram',NULL,454,'Amended by Proposal 884 (Ian), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Proposals must declare what effect that Proposal will have\n on the Rule Set. If said Proposal has a Title, this Declaration\n shall appear on the line immediately below that Title. In any\n case, the Declaration shall appear in parentheses. A Player who\n submits a proposal which does not include a Declaration, as\n described here and in other legislation, shall be guilty of a\n Class C Crime. Any Player who submits a proposal which includes\n a Declaration that has not been approved by legislation shall be\n guilty of a Class A Crime. The Declarations shall be as\n follows:\n\n (Creates a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a new\n Rule to come into existance.\n (Amends a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an\n existing Rule to change wording or form.\n (Repeals a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an\n existing Rule to cease to exist.\n (Transmutes a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a\n Mutable Rule to become Immutable, or vice versa.\n (Other) shall be used if no other Declaration has been\n defined which describes the Proposal.\n\n Additional legislation may define additional legal Declarations\n or change the presentation of the Declaration, but this Rule\n shall take precedence in all other cases.\n\n'),(495484,'zefram',NULL,454,'Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Proposals must declare what effect that Proposal will have\n on the Rule Set. If said Proposal has a Title, this Declaration\n shall appear on the line immediately below that Title. In any\n case, the Declaration shall appear in parentheses. A Player who\n submits a proposal which does not include a Declaration, as\n described here and in other legislation, shall be guilty of a\n Class C Crime. Any Player who submits a proposal which includes\n a Declaration that has not been approved by legislation shall be\n guilty of a Class A Crime. The Declarations shall be as\n follows:\n\n (Creates a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a new\n Rule to come into existance.\n (Amends a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an\n existing Rule to change wording or form.\n (Repeals a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an\n existing Rule to cease to exist.\n (Transmutes a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a\n Mutable Rule to become Immutable, or vice versa.\n (Other) shall be used if no other Declaration has been\n defined which describes the Proposal.\n\n Additional legislation may define additional legal Declarations\n or change the presentation of the Declaration, but this Rule\n shall take precedence in all other cases.\n (*Was: 454*)\n\n'),(495485,'zefram',NULL,455,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 885 (Ian), 13 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495486,'zefram',NULL,459,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 459 by Proposal 459 (Jim Shea), 15 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Nomic Week begins at midnight, GMT, each Monday. Any\n automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur\n weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week unless\n otherwise stated in the Rules. Any activity which must occur\n at least weekly must occur at least once each Nomic Week.\n\n'),(495487,'zefram',NULL,459,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Nomic Week begins at midnight, GMT, each Monday. Any\n automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur\n weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any\n automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at midnight,\n GMT, on the first of the month. Any automatic change which must\n occur quarterly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first day of\n each calendar quarter.\n\n This Rule defers to any Rule that defines another explicit\n schedule for events. Any activity that must be performed at\n least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in\n the given period.\n\n'),(495488,'zefram',NULL,459,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), 8 December 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Nomic Week begins at midnight, GMT, each Monday. Any\n automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur\n weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any\n automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at midnight,\n GMT, on the first of the month. Any automatic change which must\n occur quarterly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first day of\n each calendar quarter.\n\n Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events\n or classes of events. Any activity that must be performed at\n least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in\n the given period.\n\n'),(495489,'zefram',NULL,459,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4114 (Elysion), 2 March 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Nomic Week begins at the midnight, GMT, that begins each\n Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which\n must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week.\n Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at the\n midnight, GMT, which begins the first day of the month. Any\n automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at the\n midnight, GMT, which begins the first day of each calendar\n quarter.\n\n Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events\n or classes of events. Any activity that must be performed at\n least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in\n the given period.\n\n'),(495490,'zefram',NULL,459,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Weeks, months, quarters and years are epochs. The corresponding\n Agoran epochs, which constitute the four types of Agoran epochs,\n are Agoran weeks, Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran\n years, respectively.\n\n Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months\n begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month.\n Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April,\n July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran\n month of January begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next\n Agoran epoch of the same type begins.\n\n Except in this Rule, when the Rules refer to an epoch, they\n shall be interpreted to refer to the corresponding Agoran epoch.\n\n Automatic events that happen weekly, monthly, quarterly, or\n yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran\n epoch. Any activity that must be performed weekly, monthly,\n quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once during each\n corresponding Agoran epoch.\n\n Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events\n or classes of events.\n\n'),(495491,'zefram',NULL,459,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4505 (Murphy), 20 June 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Days, weeks, months, quarters, and years are epochs. The\n corresponding Agoran epochs are Agoran days, Agoran weeks,\n Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran years, respectively.\n\n Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at\n midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on\n the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin\n when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October\n begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next Agoran epoch of\n the same type begins.\n\n Except in this Rule, when the Rules refer to an epoch as an\n independent entity (e.g. \"each month\"), they shall be\n interpreted as referring to the corresponding Agoran epoch.\n However, when the Rules refer to an epoch as a relative duration\n (e.g. \"one month after\", \"within one month\", \"for one month\"),\n they shall be interpreted as referring to the ordinary-language\n meaning of that duration.\n\n Automatic events that happen daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly,\n or yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran\n epoch. Any activity that must be performed daily, weekly,\n monthly, quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once\n during each corresponding Agoran epoch.\n\n Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events\n or classes of events.\n\n'),(495492,'zefram',NULL,459,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 459 by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495493,'zefram',NULL,460,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 460 by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), 15 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player not On Hold who fails to post a message to the\n listserv, cast a Vote, or submit a Proposal or CFJ for 14\n consecutive calendar days is deemed to have left the Game and\n shall be removed from the list of Players. If the former Player\n re-enters the same Game, it shall be with the same score as when\n e left and e shall not be considered a new Player. Otherwise, e\n shall enter on the same terms as a new Player.\n\n'),(495494,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1338, 24 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter is deregistered when one of the following conditions\n applies:\n\n (i) E is not On Hold, has not previously asked the Registrar\n to remain registered, and has not, for 14 consecutive\n calendar days, either sent a message to the Public Forum,\n or sent a message to another Player of a kind which the\n Rules require to be recorded in a Report which becomes\n publically available.\n\n (ii) E is On Hold for a period exceeding 2 months.\n\n However, the above conditions do not cause deregistration until\n the condition which would cause deregistration is brought to the\n attention of the Registrar in a message to the Public Forum,\n correctly noting that the Voter is subject to deregistration.\n The Registrar must publicly verify the correctness of the claim\n to the best of eir ability, as soon as possible. The Voter is\n deregistered at the time the message correctly claiming\n deregistration appears on the Public Forum. If the Registrar\n does not respond within one Week, then e is considered negligent\n and the Speaker shall make the verification and announcement\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule leaving deregistration\n of a Player entirely in the hands of that Player.\n\n'),(495495,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1597, 2 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter shall be deregistered when any Player correctly reports\n to the Public Forum that one of the two conditions exists:\n\n a. The Voter in question is not On Hold and has not sent a\n message to the Public Forum or to any Player of a nature\n which must be recorded in a Report which then becomes\n publically available during the fourteen day period\n immediately preceding the posting of a message which\n announces that fact, or\n\n b. The Voter in question has been On Hold for the entire two\n month period immediately preceding the posting of a\n message which annnounces that fact.\n\n Upon the posting of any such message, the Registrar, or, in eir\n absence, the Speaker, shall, as soon as possible, determine if\n the claim is correct or not, and announce eir determinations to\n the Public Forum. If the Registrar fails to make a report\n within seven days, the Speaker shall make the required\n verification and announcement instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might prevent a\n Player from being deregistered against eir own will.\n\n'),(495496,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2506, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter shall be deregistered when any Player correctly reports\n to the Public Forum that one of the two conditions exists:\n\n a. The Voter in question is not On Hold and has not sent a\n message to the Public Forum or to any Player of a nature\n which must be recorded in a Report which then becomes\n publically available during the fourteen day period\n immediately preceding the posting of a message which\n announces that fact, or\n\n b. The Voter in question has been On Hold for the entire two\n month period immediately preceding the posting of a\n message which announces that fact.\n\n Upon the posting of any such message, the Registrar, or, in eir\n absence, the Speaker, shall, as soon as possible, determine if\n the claim is correct or not, and announce eir determinations to\n the Public Forum. If the Registrar fails to make a report\n within seven days, the Speaker shall make the required\n verification and announcement instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might prevent a\n Player from being deregistered against eir own will.\n\n'),(495497,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2568, 12 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is Absent if either of the following is true:\n * e is not On Hold and, for the period of fourteen days\n immediately preceding, has neither sent a message to the\n Public Forum, nor sent, to any other Player, a message of a\n nature such the Rules required the receiving Player to\n record the receipt of the message; or\n * e is presently on Hold and has been On Hold without\n interruption for the entire period of sixty days immediately\n preceding.\n\n An Absent Voter is deregistered when any other Player correctly\n alleges the Absence of that Player in an announcement to the\n Public Forum.\n\n Whenever a Player publically alleges the Absence of a Voter, the\n Registrar shall determine the correctness of the allegation\n (unless the Voter alleged to be absent is the Registrar, in\n which case the Speaker shall do so), and announce that\n determination as soon as possible. However, the failure of the\n Registrar (or Speaker, as appropriate) to post a timely\n determination does not in any way invalidate the deregistration\n of a Voter correctly alleged to be Absent.\n\n This Rule in no way precludes a Player from being deregistered\n by other means, and takes precedence over any Rule which would\n prevent a Player from being deregistered by this Rule.\n\n'),(495498,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), 23 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is exactly one of Not Absent, Maybe Absent, Absent\n or Abandoning. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or\n a new Player registers, e becomes Not Absent.\n\n If a Player posts to the Public Forum clearly identifying a\n particular Active Player, and alleging that that Player has\n Abandoned the game, then the Player alleged to have Abandoned\n becomes Maybe Absent. If a Player has been Maybe Absent\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Absent. If a Player has\n been On Hold continuously for sixty days, e becomes Absent.\n\n Any Player can cause any Absent Player to become Abandoning by\n stating that e is doing so in the Public Forum.\n\n If the Speaker ever becomes Abandoning, e commits the Class A\n Crime of Speaker Abandonment, e ceases to be Speaker, and the\n Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker.\n\n If any Player becomes Abandoning, e is deregistered, and the\n Registrar shall As Soon As Possible announce such in the Public\n Forum.\n\n'),(495499,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3578 (Steve), 6 November 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become\n Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying\n that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has\n been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by\n stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has\n Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged\n in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits\n the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be\n Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then\n deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as\n possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player\n has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum\n that the deregistration has actually occurred.\n\n The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent\n date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or\n Silent to any of the others.\n\n'),(495500,'zefram',NULL,460,'Infected and Amended(8) Substantially by Rule 1454, 23 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become\n Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying\n that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has\n been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by\n stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has\n Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged\n in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits\n the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be\n Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then\n deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as\n possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player\n has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum\n that the deregistration has actually occurred.\n\n The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent\n date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or\n Silent to any of the others.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495501,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(9) by Rule 1042, 6 January 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become\n Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying\n that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has\n been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by\n stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has\n Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged\n in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits\n the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be\n Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then\n deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as\n possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player\n has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum\n that the deregistration has actually occurred.\n\n The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent\n date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or\n Silent to any of the others.\n\n'),(495502,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), 19 April 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become\n Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying\n that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has\n been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by\n stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has\n Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged\n in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits\n the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be\n Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes\n a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as\n possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player\n has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum\n that the Player has become a Zombie.\n\n The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent\n date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or\n Silent to any of the others.\n\n'),(495503,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become\n Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying\n that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has\n been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by\n stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has\n Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged\n in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits\n the Class 20 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be\n Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes\n a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as\n possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player\n has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum\n that the Player has become a Zombie.\n\n The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent\n date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or\n Silent to any of the others.\n\n'),(495504,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion), 30 March 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become\n Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying\n that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has\n been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by\n stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has\n Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged\n in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits\n the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be\n Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes\n a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as\n possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player\n has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum\n that the Player has become a Zombie.\n\n The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent\n date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or\n Silent to any of the others.\n\n'),(495505,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), 5 April 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet\n within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player\n to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly\n identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has\n been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a\n Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes\n Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by\n stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has\n Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged\n in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits\n the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be\n Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes\n a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as\n possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player\n has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum\n that the Player has become a Zombie.\n\n The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent\n date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or\n Silent to any of the others.\n\n'),(495506,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player\n posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that\n Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become\n Quiet by stating publicly that e is doing so, and clearly\n identifying that Player. If a Player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has\n been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by\n stating publicly that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game.\n If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged publicly that e has\n Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker\n Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect\n becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the\n Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an public allegation\n that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny publicly\n that the Player has become a Zombie.\n\n'),(495507,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more\n than one of these. Whenever a Player posts to a Public Forum,\n or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet\n within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player\n to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly\n identifying that Player, in a Public Forum. If a Player has\n been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a\n Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes\n Silent.\n\n Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly\n alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A\n Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As\n soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has\n abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny\n that the Player is a Zombie.\n\n If a Speaker has abandoned the game, e commits the Class 15\n Crime of Speaker Abandonment, to be detected and reported by any\n Player. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes\n Speaker. The previous Speaker then becomes a Zombie.\n\n'),(495508,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more\n than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a\n public forum, that player is Noisy.\n\n A player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused\n another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy\n player to become Quiet by sending a message to a public forum in\n which e identifies the player and states that e causes that\n player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks or has been Inactive continuously for\n two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any player may publicly allege that some other player has\n abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only\n if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation\n that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall\n publicly confirm or deny the allegation.\n\n If the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall\n occur in order:\n\n (i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15\n Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and\n the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;\n\n (ii) the Silent player is deregistered.\n\n The Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as\n of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming\n the allegation.\n\n'),(495509,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more\n than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a\n public forum, that player is Noisy.\n\n A player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused\n another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy\n player to become Quiet by sending a message to a public forum in\n which e identifies the player and states that e causes that\n player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, Inactive continuously for two\n months, or Frozen continuously for two years, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any player may publicly allege that some other player has\n abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only\n if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation\n that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall\n publicly confirm or deny the allegation.\n\n If the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall\n occur in order:\n\n (i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15\n Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and\n the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;\n\n (ii) the Silent player is deregistered.\n\n The Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as\n of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming\n the allegation.\n\n'),(495510,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never\n more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts\n to a public forum, that player is noisy.\n\n (b) A player who has not quietened another player in the past 24\n hours may do so by publically identifying the player and\n stating that e causes that player to become quiet.\n\n (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned\n the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if\n the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\n'),(495511,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never\n more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts\n to a public forum, that player is noisy.\n\n (b) A player who has not quietened another active, noisy player\n in the past 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player\n to become quiet by publically identifying the player and\n stating that e causes that player to become quiet.\n\n (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned\n the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if\n the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\n'),(495512,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and\n silent.\n\n A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public\n forum.\n\n A player may flip another player\'s noisiness from noisy to\n quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past\n 24 hours.\n\n If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the\n game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the\n player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\n'),(495513,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4758 (Quazie), 15 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and\n silent.\n\n A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public\n forum.\n\n An active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from\n noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within\n the past 24 hours.\n\n If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the\n game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the\n player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\n'),(495514,'zefram',NULL,460,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4791 (Quazie), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and\n silent.\n\n The noisiness of an active player may not be changed if e has\n posted to a public forum in the past 120 hours.\n\n A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public\n forum.\n\n An active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from\n noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within\n the past 24 hours.\n\n If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the\n game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the\n player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\n'),(495515,'zefram',NULL,460,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1042 by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495516,'zefram',NULL,462,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 462 by Proposal 462, 17 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Vote of YES shall be treated as a Vote of FOR. Any Vote of\n NO shall be treated as a Vote of AGAINST.\n\n'),(495517,'zefram',NULL,462,'Amended by Proposal 957 (Garth), 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Votes of FOR or YES are to be considered Votes in favor of a\n Proposal. Votes of AGAINST or NO are to be considered Votes\n opposed to a Proposal. Other Votes are not to be considered\n as in favor or opposition.\n\n'),(495518,'zefram',NULL,462,'Amended by Rule 750, 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Votes of FOR or YES are to be considered Votes in favor of a\n Proposal. Votes of AGAINST or NO are to be considered Votes\n opposed to a Proposal. Other Votes are not to be considered\n as in favor or opposition.\n (*Was: 462*)\n\n'),(495519,'zefram',NULL,463,'Amended by Proposal 925 (Stella?), 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At least once in any seven day period, the designated\n scorekeeper shall distribute the scores of all Players, updated\n at least up to and including the previous complete Nomic Week.\n\n If a Player feels that the posted scores are in error, e shall\n send a public message pointing out the error.\n If the Scorekeepor agrees e shall correct the error and send out\n the corrected score report within 72 hours.\n\n If the Scorekeepor disagrees or does not correct the error, the\n Player who pointed out the error, may make a Call for Judgement,\n stating the error and its correction.\n If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, then\n -the Scorekeepor shall correct the error and send out the\n corrected score report within 72 hours;\n -the Scorekeepor shall not receive eis salary in the Nomic week\n following the Judgment of the CFJ.\n\n If no errors are pointed out in this way within seven days of\n the posting of the scores, then those scores shall be considered\n to be the accurate and actual scores for the Game.\n\n'),(495520,'zefram',NULL,463,'Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At least once in any seven day period, the designated\n scorekeeper shall distribute the scores of all Players, updated\n at least up to and including the previous complete Nomic Week.\n\n If a Player feels that the posted scores are in error, e shall\n send a public message pointing out the error.\n If the Scorekeepor agrees e shall correct the error and send out\n the corrected score report within 72 hours.\n\n If the Scorekeepor disagrees or does not correct the error, the\n Player who pointed out the error, may make a Call for Judgement,\n stating the error and its correction.\n If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, then\n -the Scorekeepor shall correct the error and send out the\n corrected score report within 72 hours;\n -the Scorekeepor shall not receive eis salary in the Nomic week\n following the Judgment of the CFJ.\n\n If no errors are pointed out in this way within seven days of\n the posting of the scores, then those scores shall be considered\n to be the accurate and actual scores for the Game.\n (*Was: 463*)\n\n'),(495521,'zefram',NULL,470,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 470 by Proposal 673',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495522,'zefram',NULL,474,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 474 by Proposal 474 (Alexx), 17 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player may not be deregistered from the game, except by that\n player (or the Registrar, as specified elsewhere) announcing\n that he forfeits. When a player forfeits, he remains registered\n for a length of time equal to the longest possible voting period\n on a proposal. At the end of this time, he is deregistered.\n\n During the time between forfeiting and being deregistered, the\n player may not vote or make a proposal. The player\n automatically refuses any selection for judgement, or any other\n voluntary appointed duties.\n\n If, at any time during this period, the player announces that\n they have changed their mind about forfeiting, then these\n restrictions are instantly revoked, and the deregistration does\n not take place.\n\n'),(495523,'zefram',NULL,474,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1305, 4 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the\n Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter who\n deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at\n the time date-stamped on that message, and e may not reregister\n as a Player until a new Game has begun.\n\n Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may\n be deregistered.\n\n'),(495524,'zefram',NULL,474,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2599, 11 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the\n Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter who\n deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at\n the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em to\n reregister before a new Game has begun are without effect; this\n Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be\n reregistered before a new Game has begun.\n\n Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may\n be deregistered.\n\n'),(495525,'zefram',NULL,474,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voter may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the\n Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter who\n deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at\n the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em to\n reregister before the beginning of the next month are without\n effect; this Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause\n em to be reregistered before the beginning of the next month.\n\n Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may\n be deregistered.\n\n'),(495526,'zefram',NULL,474,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by\n sending a message to the Public Forum announcing eir\n deregistration. A Player who deregisters in this fashion ceases\n to be a Player effective at the time date-stamped on that\n message, and any attempts by em to reregister before thirty days\n have passed are without effect. This Rule takes precedence over\n Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before thirty days\n have passed after eir deregistration.\n\n'),(495527,'zefram',NULL,474,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by\n sending a public message announcing eir deregistration. A Player\n who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective\n at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em\n to reregister before thirty days have passed are without effect.\n This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be\n reregistered before thirty days have passed after eir\n deregistration.\n\n'),(495528,'zefram',NULL,474,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1043 by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495529,'zefram',NULL,478,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 478 by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), 20 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Public Forum is hereby defined as any medium by which one\n player sends or posts a message which, to the best of the\n sender\'s intent, knowledge, belief, and ability, is\n simultaneously sent to all active players and accurately dated\n to within 5 minutes. The terms \"listserv\" and \"listserver\" are\n synonymous with \"Public Forum\".\n\n'),(495530,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, 8 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as\n such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public\n Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this\n requirement as well\"\n\n'),(495531,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1610, 10 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as\n such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public\n Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this\n requirement as well.\n\n The Distributor may only define a medium to be the Public Forum,\n if to the best of eis knowledge and in normal circumstances\n messages posted to it are received by all Players. Subscription\n may be necessary to be able to receive the Public Forum, in\n which case such a subscription is mandatory to all Players.\n\n'),(495532,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as\n such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public\n Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this\n requirement as well.\n\n The Distributor may only define a medium to be the Public Forum,\n if to the best of eir knowledge and in normal circumstances\n messages posted to it are received by all Players. Subscription\n may be necessary to be able to receive the Public Forum, in\n which case such a subscription is mandatory to all Players.\n\n'),(495533,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2052, 19 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as\n such. If a Rule requires that a message is sent to the Public\n Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this\n requirement as well.\n\n The Distributor may only define a medium to be the Public Forum,\n if to the best of eir knowledge and in normal circumstances\n messages posted to it are received by all Players. It is the\n Player\'s responsibility to receive all media which comprise the\n Public Forum.\n\n'),(495534,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2400, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The \"Public Forum\" is any medium legally designated as such by\n the Distributor.\n\n The Distributor is permitted to designate a medium as a Public\n Forum only if, to the best of the Distributor\'s knowledge and\n under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via that\n medium will be received by all Players.\n\n In addition, sending a message, by any medium or combination of\n media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to\n the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear\n indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public\n Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to\n every Active Player.\n\n It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e\n is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the\n Distributor has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary\n inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive\n that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.\n\n'),(495535,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 2739 (Swann), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The \"Public Forum\" is any medium legally designated as such by\n the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar is permitted to designate a medium as a Public\n Forum only if, to the best of the Registrar\'s knowledge and\n under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via that\n medium will be received by all Players.\n\n In addition, sending a message, by any medium or combination of\n media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to\n the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear\n indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public\n Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to\n every Active Player.\n\n It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e\n is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the\n Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary\n inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive\n that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.\n\n'),(495536,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 2791 (Andre), 30 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The \"Public Forum\" is any medium legally designated as such by\n the Registrar. The Registrar is permitted to designate a medium\n as a Public Forum only if, to the best of the Registrar\'s\n knowledge and under normal circumstances, any message\n transmitted via that medium will be received by all Players.\n\n It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e\n is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the\n Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary\n inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive\n that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.\n\n Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to\n every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public\n Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that\n it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is\n verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active\n Player.\n\n Whenever the Rules calls upon some Player to \"announce\", \"post\",\n or \"distribute\" some communication or notification, this shall\n be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to\n the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise\n\n'),(495537,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), 23 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic\n Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given\n medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such\n a change is made, in order to be effective, the message\n annoucing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a\n Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public\n Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum\n both before and after the change, a single message to that\n medium satisfies this requirement.)\n\n It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e\n is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the\n Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary\n inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive\n that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.\n\n Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to\n every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public\n Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that\n it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is\n verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active\n Player.\n\n Whenever the Rules calls upon some Player to \"announce\", \"post\",\n or \"distribute\" some communication or notification, this shall\n be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to\n the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise\n\n'),(495538,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic\n Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given\n medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such\n a change is made, in order to be effective, the message\n announcing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a\n Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public\n Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum\n both before and after the change, a single message to that\n medium satisfies this requirement.)\n\n It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e\n is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the\n Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary\n inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive\n that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.\n\n Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to\n every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public\n Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that\n it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is\n verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active\n Player.\n\n Whenever the Rules call upon some Player to \"announce\", \"post\",\n or \"distribute\" some communication or notification, this shall\n be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to\n the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise.\n\n'),(495539,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Public Forum is a medium of communication so designated by\n the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be\n considered the equivalent of sending that message to all\n Players.\n\n A Discussion Forum is a medium of communication so designated\n by the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never be a Public\n Forum and messages sent to a Discussion Forum are never\n considered to have been sent to all Players.\n\n The Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to\n be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without\n Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made\n via the medium whose designation is being changed. Any\n designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be\n announced via all existing Public Fora in addition to any\n other requirements.\n\n It is the responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that\n e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum.\n Any inability of a Player to receive messages via a particular\n Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status\n as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive\n messages via any particular Discussion Forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media\n which are currently Public or Discussion Fora and sufficient\n data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive\n messages via that medium.\n\n Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall\n be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication\n which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or\n combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made\n publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it\n is intended to be public.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to publish certain information,\n then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the\n time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is\n required to publish.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to announce certain information,\n that announcement must be made publicly.\n\n'),(495540,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic\n Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given\n medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such\n a change is made, in order to be effective, the message\n announcing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a\n Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public\n Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum\n both before and after the change, a single message to that\n medium satisfies this requirement.)\n\n It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e\n is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the\n Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary\n inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive\n that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum.\n\n Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to\n every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public\n Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that\n it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is\n verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active\n Player.\n\n Whenever a Player is required to make any communication\n publicly, this shall be accomplished by sending that\n communication to a Public Forum. Whenever the Rules require a\n Player to \"announce\" something, said announcement shall be made\n publicly.\n\n'),(495541,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Public Forum is a medium of communication so designated by\n the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be\n considered the equivalent of sending that message to all\n Players.\n\n A Discussion Forum is a medium of communication so designated\n by the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never be a Public\n Forum, and a message is not considered to have been sent to\n all Players solely because it was sent to a Discussion Forum.\n\n The Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to\n be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without\n Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made\n via the medium whose designation is being changed. Any\n designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be\n announced via all existing Public Fora in addition to any\n other requirements.\n\n It is the responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that\n e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum.\n Any inability of a Player to receive messages via a particular\n Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status\n as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive\n messages via any particular Discussion Forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media\n which are currently Public or Discussion Fora and sufficient\n data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive\n messages via that medium.\n\n Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall\n be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication\n which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or\n combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made\n publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it\n is intended to be public.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to publish certain information,\n then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the\n time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is\n required to publish.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to announce certain information,\n that announcement must be made publicly.\n\n'),(495542,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion,\n and Public.\n\n The Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of a\n forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on\n this action, the Registrar\'s announcement of intent must be sent\n to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the\n announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification\n must be sent to all existing Public fora.\n\n It is the responsibility of each active player to ensure that e\n can receive messages via each Public forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or\n Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to\n allow players to receive messages via that medium. The\n Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state.\n\n A message is not public unless some rule states that it is\n public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum,\n or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and\n contains a clear designation of intent to be public.\n\n A player publishes information by publicly sending a message\n containing that information, and announces something by\n publishing it.\n\n If the rules state that a player may perform an action by\n announcement, then that player may perform that action by\n announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a player\n may perform an action by private message to some player, then\n that player may perform that action by sending a message\n privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it.\n In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the\n action to be performed.\n\n'),(495543,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion,\n and Public. A forum\'s Publicity may not be changed except as\n described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of a\n forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on\n this action, the Registrar\'s announcement of intent must be sent\n to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the\n announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification\n must be sent to all existing Public fora.\n\n It is the responsibility of each active player to ensure that e\n can receive messages via each Public forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or\n Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to\n allow players to receive messages via that medium. The\n Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state.\n\n A message is not public unless some rule states that it is\n public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum,\n or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and\n contains a clear designation of intent to be public.\n\n A player publishes information by publicly sending a message\n containing that information, and announces something by\n publishing it.\n\n If the rules state that a player may perform an action by\n announcement, then that player may perform that action by\n announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a player\n may perform an action by private message to some player, then\n that player may perform that action by sending a message\n privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it.\n In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the\n action to be performed.\n\n'),(495544,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion,\n and Public. A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except as\n described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may flip the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include a list of all public or\n discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow\n players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar need\n not keep track of null fora.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495545,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Herald may change the publicity of a forum without objection\n as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Herald makes that forum public is sent to all existing\n public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include a list of all public or\n discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow\n players to receive messages via that medium. The Herald need\n not keep track of null fora.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495546,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495547,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495548,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495549,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-null\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495550,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495551,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495552,'zefram',NULL,478,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n'),(495553,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended by Proposal 698 (Wes), 12 November 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for\n a certain Statement, then a randomly selected Player shall be\n chosen to be Eligible to act as Judge. This Rule takes\n precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the selection of\n Judges.\n\n'),(495554,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1385, 17 January 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for\n a certain Statement, then the CotC shall choose a Player\n randomly from among all Active Players other than the Caller and\n those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act\n as Judge.\n\n If there are no Active Players other than the Caller and those\n Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose\n a Player randomly from among all players other than the Caller\n and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to\n act as Judge.\n\n If there are no Players other than the caller and those Player\n Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player\n randomly from among all Players, to be Eligible to act as Judge.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to\n the selection of Judges.\n\n'),(495555,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for\n a certain Statement, then the CotC shall choose a Player\n randomly from among all Active Players other than the Caller and\n those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act\n as Judge.\n\n If there are no Active Players other than the Caller and those\n Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose\n a Player randomly from among all players other than the Caller\n and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to\n act as Judge.\n\n If there are no Players other than the caller and those Players\n Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player\n randomly from among all Players, to be Eligible to act as Judge.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to\n the selection of Judges.\n\n'),(495556,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 26 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Active Player is eligible to Judge a a given CFJ unless\n specifically made ineligible by some Rule.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n If there would otherwise be no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ,\n then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players\n Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding\n the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall\n be eligible.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a\n given CFJ.\n\n'),(495557,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), 12 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Active Player is eligible to Judge a a given CFJ unless\n specifically made ineligible by some Rule.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then\n all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players\n Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to\n the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding\n the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall\n be eligible.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a\n given CFJ.\n\n'),(495558,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ unless\n specifically made ineligible by some Rule.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then\n all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players\n Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to\n the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding\n the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall\n be eligible.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a\n given CFJ.\n\n'),(495559,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some\n Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e becomes\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all\n Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by\n the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding\n the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall\n be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller\n shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora\n without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling at a later date.\n\n This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to\n Judge a given CFJs.\n\n'),(495560,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some\n Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be\n considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as\n described in other Rules.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all\n Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by\n the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding\n the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall\n be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller\n shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora\n without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling at a later date.\n\n This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to\n Judge a given CFJs.\n\n'),(495561,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some\n Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be\n considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as\n described in other Rules.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all\n Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by\n the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the\n Caller and those players barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the\n Caller, shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, and the Caller is a player, then the Caller\n shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora\n that is a generational ship whose members are in suspended\n animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when\n we arrive at our destination and begin to thaw out.\n\n This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to\n Judge a given CFJs.\n\n'),(495562,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ, unless a\n Rule specifically makes em ineligible.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but -\n after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account\n - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:\n\n a) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n b) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n c) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n d) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become\n eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n e) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has\n happened upon a generational ship whose members are in\n suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.\n\n This Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.\n\n'),(495563,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ, unless a\n Rule specifically makes em ineligible. Non-active Players are\n ineligible to Judge CFJs.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but -\n after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account\n - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:\n\n a) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n b) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n c) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n d) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become\n eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n e) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has\n happened upon a generational ship whose members are in\n suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.\n\n This Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.\n\n'),(495564,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given CFJ, unless\n a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players\n are ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge\n that CFJ.\n\n (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active barred players, other than the caller emself,\n become eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in\n serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is\n to panic, and run screaming for the hills.\n\n (c) This Rule takes precedence over other Rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n'),(495565,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given CFJ, unless\n a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players\n are ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge\n that CFJ.\n (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active barred players, other than the caller emself,\n become eligible to judge that CFJ.\n (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in\n serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is\n to panic, and run screaming for the hills.\n\n (c) This Rule takes precedence over other Rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n'),(495566,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible. A player who is inactive, unready, or silent is\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all ready, active, non-barred, non-silent players become\n eligible to judge that CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n ready, active, barred, non-silent players, other than\n the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active, non-silent players, other than the caller\n emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly\n annoying CFJ;\n\n (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n'),(495567,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible. A player who is inactive, unready, or is\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all ready, active, non-barred, players become\n eligible to judge that CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n ready, active, barred, players, other than\n the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active, players, other than the caller\n emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly\n annoying CFJ;\n\n (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n'),(495568,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4835 (Goethe), 2 October 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible. A player who is inactive or unready is\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all ready, active, non-barred players become\n eligible to judge that CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n ready, active, barred players, other than the caller\n emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active, players other than the caller emself, become\n eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;\n\n (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n'),(495569,'zefram',NULL,482,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all non-barred players become eligible to judge that\n CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n barred players, other than the caller emself, become\n eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; then\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n'),(495570,'zefram',NULL,482,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 698 by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495571,'zefram',NULL,488,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 488 by Proposal 488 (Alexx), 29 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If an officer is mandated to maintain a set of records, then\n unless those records are explicitly stated in the rules to be\n private, then they must be available for public perusal. If a\n player asks the officer for a copy of any or all of those\n records, the officer must comply as soon as he reasonably can.\n For an officer not to respond to a publically-stated request for\n a copy of the records in his keeping within 7 days is a Class B\n crime.\n\n'),(495572,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended by Proposal 1064, ca. Oct. 11 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An\n Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week, or pay\n a penalty to the Point Reserve equal to three times eir weekly\n Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does\n not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the\n Officer\'s control and the Officer reports this fact, with\n explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n The Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated\n exactly as if e were an Officer.\n\n'),(495573,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended by Rule 750, ca. Oct. 11 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An\n Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week, or pay\n a penalty to the Point Reserve equal to three times eir weekly\n Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does\n not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the\n Officer\'s control and the Officer reports this fact, with\n explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n The Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated\n exactly as if e were an Officer.\n (*Was: 488*)\n\n'),(495574,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1344, 29 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An\n Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e\n fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one\n week, e shall lose a number of Points equal to three times eir\n weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty\n does not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond\n the Officer\'s control and the Officer reports this fact, with\n explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n The Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated\n exactly as if e were an Officer.\n (*Was: 488*)\n\n'),(495575,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A\n Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e\n fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one\n week, e commits a Class D Crime, unless the Records are\n unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this\n fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n (*Was: 488*)\n\n'),(495576,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A\n Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e\n fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one\n week, e commits a Class D Crime, unless the Records are\n unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this\n fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n'),(495577,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2631, 4 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A\n Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e\n fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one\n week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless\n the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e\n reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n'),(495578,'zefram',NULL,488,'Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A\n Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e\n fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one\n week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless\n the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e\n reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495579,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A\n Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e\n fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one\n week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless\n the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e\n reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n'),(495580,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for public perusal,\n unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A\n Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these\n Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e\n fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one\n week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class 2 Crime, unless\n the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e\n reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n'),(495581,'zefram',NULL,488,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for perusal, unless\n such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player\n who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records\n to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to\n so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e\n commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class 2 Crime, unless the\n Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e\n reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\n'),(495582,'zefram',NULL,488,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1064 by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495583,'zefram',NULL,493,'Amended by Proposal 901 (KoJen), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeepor. The\n Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point\n Scores of all current Players and other Game Entities, making\n such a list available on request as well as posting it at least\n once a Week, and for notifying Players in the event of a Win on\n Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in\n cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir\n best judgement in determining Scores.\n\n The Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted\n by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those\n classes of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal\n Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor.\n\n'),(495584,'zefram',NULL,493,'Amended by Rule 750, 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeepor. The\n Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point\n Scores of all current Players and other Game Entities, making\n such a list available on request as well as posting it at least\n once a Week, and for notifying Players in the event of a Win on\n Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in\n cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir\n best judgement in determining Scores.\n\n The Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted\n by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those\n classes of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal\n Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor.\n (*Was: 493*)\n\n'),(495585,'zefram',NULL,493,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1328, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeepor. The\n Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point\n Scores of all current Players and other Game Entities, making\n such a list available on request as well as posting it to the\n Public Forum at least once a Week, and for notifying Players in\n the event of a Win on Points. E must abide by all Rules\n governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or\n contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining\n Scores.\n\n The Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted\n by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those\n classes of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal\n Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor.\n (*Was: 493*)\n\n'),(495586,'zefram',NULL,493,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office called the Scorekeepor. The\n Scorekeepor shall, in addition to eir other duties, detect and\n report as soon as possible whenever a Player has Won the Game\n due to a Win by Points.\n\n The Salary of the Scorekeepor shall be 5 Points per Week.\n\n'),(495587,'zefram',NULL,493,'Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office called the Scorekeepor. The\n Scorekeepor shall, in addition to eir other duties, detect and\n report as soon as possible whenever a Player has Won the Game\n due to a Win by Points.\n\n The Salary of the Scorekeepor shall be 5 Points per Week.\n\n'),(495588,'zefram',NULL,498,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 498 by Proposal 498 (Alexx), 30 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player is any person who is registered as a player. No person\n may register as a player more than once concurrently. Anyone is\n allowed to observe the game and participate in discussion of any\n issue, but no person who is not a player may take official Nomic\n actions or interact in any way with any entities which are\n created by the Rules of Nomic and which do not exist outside of\n Nomic.\n\n'),(495589,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended by Proposal 869 (Garth), 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. No person\n may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently.\n\n'),(495590,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. No person\n may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently.\n (*Was: 498*)\n\n'),(495591,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, 12 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. No person\n may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently.\n\n If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose,\n then the use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is prefered, but\n not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is\n allowed.\n\n'),(495592,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, 21 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.\n Registration occurs when a person who is not a Player sends a\n message to the Public Forum requesting to be Registered. No\n person may be registered as a Player more than once\n concurrently.\n\n If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the\n use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not\n obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.\n\n'),(495593,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2040, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.\n A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the\n Public Forum requesting Registration, unless another Rule\n forbids that person from Registering. No person may be\n registered as a Player more than once concurrently.\n\n If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the\n use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not\n obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.\n\n'),(495594,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2599, 11 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.\n A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the\n Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules\n which would prevent such a Registration. No person may be\n registered as a Player more than once concurrently.\n\n If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the\n use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not\n obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.\n\n'),(495595,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2718, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.\n A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the\n Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules\n which would prevent such a Registration.\n\n If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the\n use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not\n obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.\n\n'),(495596,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.\n A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the\n Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules\n which would prevent such a Registration.\n\n If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the\n use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not\n obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.\n\n When a Player registers, eir Location is the Welcoming Center.\n\n'),(495597,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.\n A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the\n Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules\n which would prevent such a Registration.\n\n If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the\n use of that Player\'s Agora nickname is preferred, but not\n obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.\n\n'),(495598,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), 10 October 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any non-Player person may register by sending a message to a\n Public Forum requesting registration. The person immediately\n becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide\n additional necessary conditions for registration which have not\n been fulfilled.\n\n If that person had ever previously been registered as at least\n one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then\n e shall become the Player e had been most recently.\n\n A Player may select a nickname for emself at any time by sending\n a message to that effect to the Public Forum, but e need not do\n so. A Player should be identified by eir nickname, if e has\n one. However, any unambiguous method of identification is\n allowed.\n\n'),(495599,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any non-Player person may register by sending a message to a\n Public Forum requesting registration. The person immediately\n becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide\n additional necessary conditions for registration which have not\n been fulfilled.\n\n If that person had ever previously been registered as at least\n one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then\n e shall become the Player e had been most recently.\n\n A Player may select a nickname for emself at any time by sending\n a public message to that effect, but e need not do so. A Player\n should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However,\n any unambiguous method of identification is allowed.\n\n'),(495600,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any non-Player person may register by publicly requesting\n registration. The person immediately becomes a registered Player,\n unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for\n registration which have not been fulfilled.\n\n If that person had ever previously been registered as at least\n one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then\n e shall become the Player e had been most recently.\n\n A Player may select a nickname for emself at any time by sending\n a public message to that effect, but e need not do so. A Player\n should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However,\n any unambiguous method of identification is allowed.\n\n'),(495601,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A\n Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player\n is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 12 previous months, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends two months afterwards. A Player is only subject to the\n Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period ends, e becomes Ready.\n\n'),(495602,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A\n Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player\n is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n'),(495603,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A\n Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player\n is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period\n shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which\n elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that\n Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by\n reason of that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n'),(495604,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Readiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and\n unready.\n\n An unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period\n shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which\n elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that\n Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by\n reason of that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n'),(495605,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any person who is not registered as a player may do so by\n sending a message to a public forum announcing that e registers\n as a player. Unless other rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered player.\n\n Readiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and\n unready.\n\n An unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.\n\n Whenever a player registers, and that player has not previously\n been registered as a player in Agora at any time within the 365\n previous days, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace\n Period that begins at the time of eir registration and lasts\n sixty days, not including Holidays. A player is only subject to\n the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n'),(495606,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering may become a registered player by\n sending a message to a public forum which sets forth eir intent\n to register.\n\n'),(495607,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n'),(495608,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a natural person\n can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495609,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495610,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb\n \"to be registered\" means to become a player, and the verb \"to be\n deregistered\" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb \"to\n register\" or \"to deregister\" is used without an explicit direct\n object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective\n \"registered\", or its fuller form \"registered as a player\",\n describes those who are players.\n\n A person is permitted to register or deregister unless\n specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by\n announcement.\n\n Whenever a player is deregistered, e is prohibited from\n registering for the next thirty days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495611,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb\n \"to be registered\" means to become a player, and the verb \"to be\n deregistered\" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb \"to\n register\" or \"to deregister\" is used without an explicit direct\n object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective\n \"registered\", or its fuller form \"registered as a player\",\n describes those who are players.\n\n A person is permitted to register or deregister unless\n specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by\n announcement.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters, e is prohibited from registering\n for the next thirty days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495612,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and\n Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity\n whose citizenship is Registered. \"To register\" and \"to become a\n player\" are synonymous with \"to flip one\'s citizenship to\n Registered\"; \"to deregister\" and \"to be deregistered\" are\n synonymous with \"to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null\".\n\n A person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n'),(495613,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and\n Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity\n whose citizenship is Registered. \"To register\" and \"to become a\n player\" are synonymous with \"to flip one\'s citizenship to\n Registered\"; \"to deregister\" and \"to be deregistered\" are\n synonymous with \"to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null\".\n\n A person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495614,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and\n Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity\n whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Null to Registered), and the\n verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player (i.e.,\n to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to Null).\n Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\" is used without\n an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495615,'zefram',NULL,498,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n'),(495616,'zefram',NULL,503,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 503 by Proposal 503, 30 September 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to\n a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge,\n before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk.\n\n'),(495617,'zefram',NULL,503,'Amended by Proposal 1005, ca. Aug. 25 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to\n a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge,\n before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the\n Clerk.\n\n Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which\n that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and\n which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ.\n\n The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.\n\n'),(495618,'zefram',NULL,503,'Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to\n a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge,\n before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the\n Clerk.\n\n Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which\n that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and\n which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ.\n\n The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.\n (*Was: 503*)\n\n'),(495619,'zefram',NULL,503,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to\n a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge,\n before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the\n Clerk.\n\n Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which\n that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and\n which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ.\n The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur\n as a result of this Rule.\n\n The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.\n (*Was: 503*)\n\n'),(495620,'zefram',NULL,503,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to\n a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge,\n before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the\n Clerk.\n\n Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which\n that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and\n which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ.\n The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur\n as a result of this Rule.\n\n The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.\n (*Was: 503*)\n\n'),(495621,'zefram',NULL,503,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to\n a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge,\n before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the\n Clerk.\n\n Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which\n that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and\n which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ.\n The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur\n as a result of this Rule.\n\n The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.\n\n'),(495622,'zefram',NULL,503,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2403, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to\n a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge,\n before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the\n Clerk.\n\n Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which\n that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and\n which is not yet Judged, will lose 2 Points per pending CFJ.\n The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur\n as a result of this Rule.\n\n The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player.\n\n'),(495623,'zefram',NULL,510,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the\n Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they\n may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication\n that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor\n shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible\n and in the order received. The first Distributor shall be Wes.\n This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a\n Player to send something to all Players.\n (*Was: 510*)\n\n'),(495624,'zefram',NULL,510,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the\n Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they\n may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication\n that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor\n shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible\n and in the order received. The first Distributor shall be Wes.\n This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a\n Player to send something to all Players.\n\n'),(495625,'zefram',NULL,510,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 2739 (Swann), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to post something to the Public\n Forum (or to send it to all Players) e is permitted, instead, to\n send the message to the Registrar with some indication that it\n should be forwarded to all Players. The Registrar shall send\n such messages to all Players as soon as possible and in the\n order received. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules\n which require a Player to send something to all Players or to\n the Public Forum.\n\n'),(495626,'zefram',NULL,510,'Amended(4)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player is required to post something to the Public\n Forum (or to send it to all Players) e is permitted, instead, to\n send the message to the Registrar with some indication that it\n should be forwarded to all Players. The Registrar shall send\n such messages to all Players as soon as possible and in the\n order received. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules\n which require a Player to send something to all Players or to\n the Public Forum.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495627,'zefram',NULL,512,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 512 by Proposal 512, 5 October 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In the case that the Distributor cannot reach a particular\n Player, because of computer error, bounced mail, or other\n problem, a total of three attempts shall be made to contact that\n Player and notify the Player of this error. These attempts shall\n be at least 24 hours apart. Should all three attempts fail, the\n Distributor shall not be required to send that message to that\n Player.\n\n'),(495628,'zefram',NULL,513,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 513 by Proposal 513, 5 October 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Distributor shall keep all messages which he forwards to all\n Players for a minimum period of ten days. If a Player request\n these messages to be resent at any time during these ten days,\n the Distributor shall resend the requested messages.\n\n'),(495629,'zefram',NULL,514,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 514 by Proposal 514 (Wes), 5 October 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Players shall notify the Distributor of their preferred\n email address(es). Should this address change, that Player shall\n notify the Distributor of this change. If a Player fails to\n notify the Distributor of a change of address, the Distributor\n shall not be responsible for any mail which did not reach that\n Player.\n\n'),(495630,'zefram',NULL,514,'Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 2739 (Swann), 5 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Players shall notify the Registrar of their preferred email\n address(es). Should this address change, that Player shall\n notify the Registrar of this change. If a Player fails to\n notify the Registrar of a change of address, the Registrar shall\n not be responsible for any mail which did not reach that Player.\n\n'),(495631,'zefram',NULL,514,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player may list or unlist an e-mail address by informing\n the Registrar that e is doing so. When a Player registers, the\n address used to send eir registration becomes listed.\n\n A listing is only valid if the Player sends a public message\n from the listed address within one week of the listing. (This\n message may be the listing itself.) An unlisting is only valid\n if the Player keeps at least one address listed.\n\n If a Player fails to notify the Registrar of a change of\n address, then the Registrar is not responsible for any e-mail\n that fails to reach that Player.\n\n'),(495632,'zefram',NULL,514,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 514 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495633,'zefram',NULL,533,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Bank shall tender Marks to any Entity which transfers Points\n to the Bank with the intent to receive Marks in exchange. Upon\n the receipt of Points from any Entity, accompanied by a message\n to the Banker from the Executor of that Entity indicating intent\n to purchase Marks, the Bank shall transfer to that Entity 1 Mark\n for each 25 Points thus transferred.\n\n'),(495634,'zefram',NULL,533,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1691, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Entity which possesses Points is permitted to convert any or\n all of those Points to Marks by transferring those Points to the\n Bank, and by also informing the Banker that the transfer is for\n the purpose of purchasing Marks.\n\n Whenever the Bank receives Points from any Entity which are\n accompanied by a message from the Executor of that Entity to the\n Banker indicating that those Points are to be used to purchase\n Marks, the Bank shall transfer a commensurate number of Marks\n computed using the primary Mark Exchange Rate to that Entity\'s\n Treasury. This transfer shall be detected and reported by the\n Banker.\n\n'),(495635,'zefram',NULL,533,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1743, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Entity which possesses Points in any of its Treasuries is\n permitted to convert any or all of those Points to Marks. E\n does so by sending a message to the Scorekeepor indicating that\n e wishes to do so, also specifying how many Points e wishes to\n convert, and the Treasury from which this Points are to be\n removed (if the Entity possess more than one Treasury).\n\n When such a message is sent, if the Treasury specified is owned\n by the Entity requesting the exchange and contains at least as\n many Points as are to be converted, then that many Points are\n transferred from that Treasury to the Bank, and, simultaneously,\n a commensurate number of Marks computed using the primary Mark\n Exchange Rate are transferred from the Bank to that Treasury.\n\n All these transfers shall be detected and reported by the\n Scorekeepor, as soon as possible after they take place.\n\n'),(495636,'zefram',NULL,544,'Amended by Proposal 833 (Garth), 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets\n F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the\n number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Voters\n shall be counted for this determination.\n\n'),(495637,'zefram',NULL,544,'Amended by Rule 750, 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets\n F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the\n number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Voters\n shall be counted for this determination.\n (*Was: 544*)\n\n'),(495638,'zefram',NULL,544,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1554, 17 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets\n F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the\n number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Players\n shall be counted for this determination.\n (*Was: 544*)\n\n'),(495639,'zefram',NULL,544,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal\n has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of\n that Proposal gains a number of Points equal to the number of\n FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a\n Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the\n Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST\n Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes\n and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor\n loses Points as a result of this Rule.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are\n not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by\n the Assessor.\n\n The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule,\n and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495640,'zefram',NULL,544,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 24 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal\n has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of\n that Proposal gains a number of Points equal to the number of\n FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a\n Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the\n Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST\n Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes\n and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor\n loses Points as a result of this Rule.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are\n not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by\n the Assessor.\n\n The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule,\n and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal in question.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495641,'zefram',NULL,544,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2636, 12 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal\n has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of\n that Proposal gains a number of Points equal to the number of\n FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a\n Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the\n Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST\n Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes\n and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor\n loses Points as a result of this Rule.\n\n The loss of points (but not the gain of points) described\n in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are\n not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by\n the Assessor.\n\n The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule,\n and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495642,'zefram',NULL,544,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal\n has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of\n that Proposal gains a number of Mils equal to the number of\n FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a\n Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the\n Proposer loses a number of Mils equal to the number of AGAINST\n Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes\n and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor\n loses Marks as a result of this Rule.\n\n The loss of Marks (but not the gain of Marks) described\n in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are\n not Players do not count.\n\n The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule,\n and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495643,'zefram',NULL,544,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal\n has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of\n that Proposal gains a number of Mil equal to the number of\n FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a\n Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the\n Proposer loses a number of Mil equal to the number of AGAINST\n Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes\n and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor\n loses Marks as a result of this Rule.\n\n The loss of Marks (but not the gain of Marks) described\n in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are\n not Players do not count.\n\n The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule,\n and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting\n Results of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(495644,'zefram',NULL,548,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 548 by Proposal 772',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495645,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1325, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar\n has responsibility over maintaining the list of registered\n Players. Any person who is not currently a Player may register\n as one by sending a message to the Registrar requesting that\n they be registered. The Registrar shall post a list of all\n currently registered Players whenever a new Player or Players\n are added to the list.\n\n'),(495646,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1436, 21 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar\n has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered\n Players. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently\n registered Players within one Week following any change to this\n list. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules.\n\n'),(495647,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1660, 14 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar\n has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered\n Players. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently\n registered Players within one Week following any change to this\n list. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules.\n\n The Registrar\'s salary shall be 5 points per week.\n\n'),(495648,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1660, 14 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar\n has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered\n Players. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently\n registered Players within one Week following any change to this\n list. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. The\n Registrar\'s salary shall be 5 points per week.\n\n'),(495649,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar\n has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered\n Players. The Registrar shall include a list of all currently\n registered Players in the Registrar\'s Report. Other duties may\n be assigned by other Rules.\n\n'),(495650,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2451, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar\n has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered\n Players. The Registrar shall include a list of all currently\n registered Players in the Registrar\'s Report. Other duties may\n be assigned by other Rules. The Registrar shall receive a\n Salary of 4 Points.\n\n'),(495651,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The\n Registrar\'s Salary is 4 Points.\n\n'),(495652,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The\n Registrar\'s Salary is 4 Mils.\n\n'),(495653,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n'),(495654,'zefram',NULL,559,'Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n'),(495655,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar\n shall receive a salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n'),(495656,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar\n\n There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall\n receive a salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.\n\n'),(495657,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of Players and titles held by Players.\n\n'),(495658,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of Players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) A list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic\n nickname (if any), preferred email address, current\n Active/Inactive status.\n\n (ii) A list of all Grace Periods in progress, including\n the Player subject to the Grace period, the time at\n which it started, and the time at which it will end.\n\n (iii) A list of Players who are Zombies, and who their\n Masters are.\n\n (iv) The most recent date on which each Player registered.\n\n (v) Each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Active or\n Inactive.\n\n (vi) Each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent.\n\n (vii) The identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and\n eir Term of Service).\n\n'),(495659,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), 29 August 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of Players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) A list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic\n nickname (if any) and preferred email address.\n\n (ii) A list of all Grace Periods in progress, including\n the Player subject to the Grace period, the time at\n which it started, and the time at which it will end.\n\n (iii) A list of Players who are Zombies, and who their\n Masters are.\n\n (iv) The most recent date on which each Player registered.\n\n (v) Each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Active or\n Inactive.\n\n (vi) Each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent.\n\n (vii) The identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and\n eir Term of Service).\n\n'),(495660,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of Players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered Players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including\n the Player subject to the Grace Period, the time at\n which it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready Players;\n\n (iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters\n are;\n\n (v) the most recent date on which each Player registered;\n\n (vi) each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that Player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vii) each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or\n Silent; and\n\n (viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir\n Term of Service).\n\n'),(495661,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of Players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered Players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including\n the Player subject to the Grace Period, the time at\n which it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready Players;\n\n (iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters\n are;\n\n (v) the most recent date on which each Player registered;\n\n (vi) each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that Player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vii) each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or\n Silent; and\n\n (viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir\n Term of Service).\n\n (viii) A list of Players who are Monks.\n\n'),(495662,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and\n eir Term of Service); and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\n'),(495663,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and\n eir Term of Service); and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\n'),(495664,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\n'),(495665,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\n'),(495666,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\n'),(495667,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Weekly Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\n'),(495668,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(23) by Proposal 4616 (OscarMeyr), 1 October 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Weekly Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent; and\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor.\n\n'),(495669,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(24) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the\n following information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent; and\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor.\n\n'),(495670,'zefram',NULL,559,'Amended(25) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the\n following information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date\n and method by which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) the identity of the Distributor.\n\n'),(495671,'zefram',NULL,559,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 559 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495672,'zefram',NULL,560,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 934 (Chuck), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495673,'zefram',NULL,568,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 904 (KoJen), 22 April 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495674,'zefram',NULL,594,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 594 by Proposal 594 (KoJen), 21 October 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If the Proposal\n is Adopted, then the Rule Change(s) contained within that\n Proposal shall take effect. All Proposals are Voted upon and\n treated exactly like Rule Changes, and shall be Numbered exactly\n like Rule Changes. This Rule takes precedence over all other\n Rules.\n\n At the moment that Rule 105 is Transmuted, this Rule shall be\n Amended to read:\n\n A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If the Proposal\n is Adopted, then the Rule Change(s) contained within that\n Proposal shall take effect. No Proposal may Enact or Amend more\n than one Rule.\n\n'),(495675,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, 21 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal\n containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained\n in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in\n the Proposal.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which\n is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow\n all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This\n paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption\n Index for a given Proposal.\n\n In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1.\n\n'),(495676,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2399, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal\n containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained\n in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in\n the Proposal.\n\n Unless another Rule states otherwise, the Adoption Index of a\n Proposal shall be the minimum Adoption Index which would allow\n all Rule Changes and Directives within the Proposal to take\n effect, or 1, whichever is greater.\n\n In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1.\n\n'),(495677,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Proposal is adopted, its Power becomes equal to its\n Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the\n Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the\n Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable\n are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision,\n each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n'),(495678,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Proposal takes effect:\n (a) if the Proposer is a Member of The Cabal (as explicitly\n defined by the Rules) when the Proposal takes effect,\n the Proposal\'s Power is set equal to its Voting Index;\n (b) otherwise, its power is set equal to 1;\n and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are\n implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules.\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n'),(495679,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4328 (Goethe), 9 June 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Proposal takes effect:\n (a) if the Proposer is a Member of The Cabal (as explicitly\n defined by the Rules) when the Proposal takes effect,\n the Proposal\'s power is set equal to 4;\n (b) otherwise, its power is set equal to 1;\n and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are\n implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules.\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable\n are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision,\n each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n'),(495680,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as\n described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of another\n entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be\n so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power\n greater than its own.\n\n When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to\n its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of\n the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n'),(495681,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4349 (root), 20 July 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as\n described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any\n entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be\n so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power\n greater than its own.\n\n When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to\n its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of\n the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n'),(495682,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as\n described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any\n entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be\n so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power\n greater than its own.\n\n When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to\n its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of\n the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n'),(495683,'zefram',NULL,594,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal can, as part of its effect, enact a rule, specifying\n its content and optionally specifying its power and title. If\n the proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have\n power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then\n the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the\n power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal.\n If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any\n title e sees fit.\n\n When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number,\n which must be greater than any number previously assigned, and\n shall assign it a revision number of zero.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted.\n\n'),(495684,'zefram',NULL,594,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 594 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495685,'zefram',NULL,597,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1327, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall\n not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore\n shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that\n Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the\n proposal is not properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon.\n\n'),(495686,'zefram',NULL,600,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 844 (Garth), 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495687,'zefram',NULL,602,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 845 (Garth), 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495688,'zefram',NULL,605,'Amended by Proposal 846 (Garth), 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may only be found Guilty once for a particular instance\n of a particular Crime. If a Player admits to being Guilty while\n a Criminal Court is in session to find that Player Guilty, e\n shall suffer the penalties as if e had been found Guilty by a\n Criminal Court. If a Player admits to being Guilty before\n Criminal Court has been called, then a Criminal Court shall not\n be called for that instance of that Crime, and the Player shall\n suffer any penalties for committing the Crime. This Rule takes\n precedence over other Rules that define when a Criminal Court\n should be called.\n\n'),(495689,'zefram',NULL,605,'Amended by Rule 750, 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may only be found Guilty once for a particular instance\n of a particular Crime. If a Player admits to being Guilty while\n a Criminal Court is in session to find that Player Guilty, e\n shall suffer the penalties as if e had been found Guilty by a\n Criminal Court. If a Player admits to being Guilty before\n Criminal Court has been called, then a Criminal Court shall not\n be called for that instance of that Crime, and the Player shall\n suffer any penalties for committing the Crime. This Rule takes\n precedence over other Rules that define when a Criminal Court\n should be called.\n (*Was: 605*)\n\n'),(495690,'zefram',NULL,608,'Amended by Proposal 941 (KoJen), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because a Criminal Court\n has indicated so, e shall lose Points as follows according to\n the Class of Crime of which e is Guilty of: Class A = 2;\n Class B = 5; Class C = 8; Class D = 15. If a Player is found\n Guilty of a Crime because that Player publicly admitted such, e\n shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime\n which e is Guilty of: Class A = 1; Class B = 3; Class C = 5;\n Class D = 10.\n\n Responsibility for notifying the Scorekeepor of these penalties\n is given to the Clerk of the Courts, who must notify the\n Scorekeepor as soon as possible following the publication of the\n judgement finding em guilty; preferably at the same time as this\n publication, and absolutely no later than one Week.\n\n'),(495691,'zefram',NULL,608,'Amended by Rule 750, 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because a Criminal Court\n has indicated so, e shall lose Points as follows according to\n the Class of Crime of which e is Guilty of: Class A = 2;\n Class B = 5; Class C = 8; Class D = 15. If a Player is found\n Guilty of a Crime because that Player publicly admitted such, e\n shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime\n which e is Guilty of: Class A = 1; Class B = 3; Class C = 5;\n Class D = 10.\n\n Responsibility for notifying the Scorekeepor of these penalties\n is given to the Clerk of the Courts, who must notify the\n Scorekeepor as soon as possible following the publication of the\n judgement finding em guilty; preferably at the same time as this\n publication, and absolutely no later than one Week.\n (*Was: 608*)\n\n'),(495692,'zefram',NULL,614,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1470, 8 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player may voluntarily transfer any Currency in eir\n possession to any other player for any purpose by sending such\n a message to the Recordkeepor for that Currency, within the\n following limits:\n\n a) a player may only transfer a positive number of\n a Currency\n b) a player may not transfer more of a Currency than e\n currently has.\n\n This rule applies to Currencies in general, and thus defers to\n rules for specific Currencies.\n\n'),(495693,'zefram',NULL,615,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 615 by Proposal 752',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495694,'zefram',NULL,627,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 949 (Stella?), 14 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495695,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1334, 22 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A\n Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a\n Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive\n must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it\n is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a\n Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be\n known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive\n fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent\n Title for a period of 4 weeks.\n\n If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another\n method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take\n precedence over this Rule.\n\n The Registrar shall keep track of all Patent Titles which have\n been granted.\n\n'),(495696,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A\n Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a\n Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive\n must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it\n is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a\n Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be\n known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive\n fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent\n Title for a period of 4 weeks.\n\n If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another\n method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take\n precedence over this Rule.\n\n The Registrar shall keep track of which Patent Titles have\n been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, and shall\n publish this information in the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(495697,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A\n Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a\n Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive\n must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it\n is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a\n Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be\n known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive\n fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent\n Title for a period of 4 weeks.\n\n If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another\n method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take\n precedence over this Rule.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that\n have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This\n list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s\n Report.\n\n'),(495698,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A\n Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a\n Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive\n must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it\n is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a\n Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be\n known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive\n fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent\n Title for a period of 4 weeks.\n\n If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another\n method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take\n precedence over this Rule.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that\n have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This list\n is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s\n Report.\n\n'),(495699,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2693, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A\n Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a\n Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive\n must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it\n is to be awarded. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a\n Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1.\n\n If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be\n known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive\n fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent\n Title for a period of 4 weeks.\n\n If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another\n method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take\n precedence over this Rule.\n\n'),(495700,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(5) Cosmetically by Proposal 2807 (Andre), 8 February 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A\n Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a\n Directive awarding the Title to that Person. Such a Directive\n must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it\n is to be awarded.\n\n If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be\n known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive\n fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent\n Title for a period of 4 weeks.\n\n If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another\n method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take\n precedence over this Rule.\n\n'),(495701,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist a class of entities known as Patent Titles.\n Patent Titles may be possessed only by persons. The awarding of\n Patent Titles will generally be by Proposal, but this should not\n be taken to preclude any other means of award.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that\n have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This\n list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s\n Report.\n\n'),(495702,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3488 (Zefram; disi.), 19 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent\n Titles can be possessed only by persons.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that\n have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, with the\n exception of any such events of which the Rules state that they\n have no Historical Significance. This list is known as the Gold\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(495703,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), 6 April 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent\n Titles can be possessed only by persons.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that\n have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, with the\n exception of any such Titles which have no Historical\n Significance. For the purposes of this Rule, any Title defined\n by the Rules to have no Historical SIgnificance has none. In\n addition, the Registrar may Act to declare any Title not\n referred to in th Rules to be without Historical Significance\n Without Objection. If such an action successfully occurs, then\n that Title also has no Historical Significance.\n\n This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the\n Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(495704,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), 12 May 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent\n Titles can be possessed only by persons.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that\n have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, with the\n exception of any such Titles which have no Historical\n Significance. For the purposes of this Rule, any Title defined\n by the Rules to have no Historical Significance has none. In\n addition, the Registrar may Act to declare any Title not\n referred to in th Rules to be without Historical Significance\n Without Objection. If such an action successfully occurs, then\n that Title also has no Historical Significance.\n\n This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the\n Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(495705,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), 27 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent\n Titles can be possessed only by persons.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce in\n a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred,\n and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person\n or persons.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical\n Significance, but the Herald may, Without Objection, cause that\n Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title\n immediately gains Hysterical Significance.\n\n As part of eir Report, the Herald shall maintain a list of each\n Patent Title with Historical Significance that has been awarded\n and not subsequently revoked, and to whom it has been awarded.\n\n'),(495706,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. Only persons may possess Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce\n in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred,\n and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which\n person or persons.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical\n Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that\n Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title\n immediately gains Hysterical Significance.\n\n'),(495707,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), 13 February 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce\n in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred,\n and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which\n person or persons.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical\n Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that\n Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title\n immediately gains Hysterical Significance.\n\n'),(495708,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), 13 February 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. Only persons may possess Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce\n in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred,\n and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which\n person or persons.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical\n Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that\n Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title\n immediately gains Hysterical Significance.\n\n'),(495709,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly\n announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and\n which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or\n persons.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical\n Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that\n Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title\n immediately gains Hysterical Significance.\n\n'),(495710,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly\n announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and\n which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or\n persons.\n\n Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states\n Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without\n Objection, cause a Title be switched from Historical\n Significance to Hysterical Significance.\n\n'),(495711,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly\n announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and\n which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or\n persons.\n\n Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states\n Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without\n Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to\n Hysterical Significance.\n\n'),(495712,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title\n shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or\n revoke that Patent Title.\n\n Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states\n Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without\n Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to\n Hysterical Significance.\n\n'),(495713,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules.\n\n As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title\n shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or\n revoke that Patent Title.\n\n'),(495714,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report shall\n include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person\n Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title\n shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or\n revoke that Patent Title.\n\n'),(495715,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report shall\n include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person\n Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n'),(495716,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n'),(495717,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible\n for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n'),(495718,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible\n for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one person\n Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n'),(495719,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n'),(495720,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n'),(495721,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n'),(495722,'zefram',NULL,649,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n'),(495723,'zefram',NULL,650,'Amended by Proposal 912 (Garth), 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be additional legal Declarations which are as\n follows:\n\n (Award a Patent Title) shall be used if the Proposal does not\n Enact a Rule, but awards an existing Patent Title to a\n person.\n (Run for Office) shall be used if a Proposal seeks to place a\n Player in Office, according to the Rules for Offices.\n (*Was: 650*)\n\n'),(495724,'zefram',NULL,650,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be additional legal Declarations which are as\n follows:\n\n (Award a Patent Title) shall be used if the Proposal does not\n Enact a Rule, but awards an existing Patent Title to a\n person.\n (Run for Office) shall be used if a Proposal seeks to place a\n Player in Office, according to the Rules for Offices.\n (*Was: 650/799*)\n\n'),(495725,'zefram',NULL,651,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), 13 February 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be\n awarded to those persons who gave outstanding service to Agora\n Nomic or Nomics as a whole, but who are no longer Players or\n who never were Players. No Player may Bear the Patent Title of\n Hero.\n\n'),(495726,'zefram',NULL,651,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4173 (Goethe), 26 June 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be\n awarded to those persons who gave outstanding service to Agora\n Nomic or Nomics as a whole, but who are no longer Players or who\n never were Players. If a person Bearing the Patent Title of\n Hero is registered as a Player, e shall cease to Bear that\n Patent Title.\n\n'),(495727,'zefram',NULL,651,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 651 by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495728,'zefram',NULL,654,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This\n Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of\n eNomic, or who has Won a Game of eNomic. This Patent Title shall\n be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal.\n\n If a Player Wins a Game despite a handicap factor X, then that\n Player shall instead receive the Patent Title \"Champion*X\",\n substituting for X the ratio of the Points required for that\n Player to Win, over the Points required for an unhandicapped\n Player to Win.\n\n'),(495729,'zefram',NULL,654,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2433, 30 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This\n Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of\n Agora Nomic, or who has Won a Game of Agora Nomic. This Patent\n Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a\n Proposal.\n\n If a Player Wins a Game despite a handicap factor X, then that\n Player shall instead receive the Patent Title \"Champion*X\",\n substituting for X the ratio of the Points required for that\n Player to Win, over the Points required for an unhandicapped\n Player to Win.\n\n'),(495730,'zefram',NULL,654,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This\n Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of\n Agora Nomic, or who has Won a Game of Agora Nomic. This Patent\n Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a\n Proposal.\n\n'),(495731,'zefram',NULL,654,'Amended(5) by Rule 755, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners\' Cups. There\n are 16 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list\n of which is defined in this Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest\n Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already\n is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately\n above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups\n previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any\n Historical Significance.\n\n The Cups are :\n * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup\n * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum\n Cup\n * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond\n Cup\n * (13) Supreme Cup\n\n The first three groups are know, respectively, as the Plain\n Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups.\n\n'),(495732,'zefram',NULL,654,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2721, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners\' Cups. There\n are 13 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list\n of which is defined in this Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest\n Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already\n is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately\n above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups\n previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any\n Historical Significance.\n\n The Cups are :\n * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup\n * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum\n Cup\n * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond\n Cup\n * (13) Supreme Cup\n\n The first three groups are know, respectively, as the Plain\n Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups.\n\n'),(495733,'zefram',NULL,654,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners\' Cups. There\n are 13 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list\n of which is defined in this Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest\n Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already\n is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately\n above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups\n previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any\n Historical Significance.\n\n The Cups are :\n * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup\n * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum\n Cup\n * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond\n Cup\n * (13) Supreme Cup\n\n The first three groups are known, respectively, as the Plain\n Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups.\n\n'),(495734,'zefram',NULL,654,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 755 by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), 15 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495735,'zefram',NULL,662,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1486, 15 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Move\" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or\n group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of\n Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:\n\n - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking\n in legal force, in whole or in part;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be\n interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the\n Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege that the current published game state is\n incorrect, and in what respects.\n\n A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above\n conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for\n Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall\n defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not\n necessarily meet the above conditions.\n\n'),(495736,'zefram',NULL,662,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1677, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Move\" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or\n group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of\n Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:\n\n - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking\n in legal force, in whole or in part;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be\n interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the\n Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation,\n or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the\n Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of\n a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain\n way.\n - clearly allege that the current published game state is\n incorrect, and in what respects.\n\n A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above\n conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for\n Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall\n defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not\n necessarily meet the above conditions.\n\n'),(495737,'zefram',NULL,662,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Move\" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or\n group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of\n Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:\n\n - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking\n in legal force, in whole or in part;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be\n interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the\n Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation,\n or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the\n Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of\n a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain\n way.\n - clearly allege that the current published game state is\n incorrect, and in what respects.\n\n A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above\n conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for\n Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall\n defer to rules which explicitly permit CFJs that do not\n necessarily meet the above conditions.\n\n'),(495738,'zefram',NULL,662,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 14 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Move\" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or\n group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of\n Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions:\n\n - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking\n in legal force, in whole or in part;\n - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be\n interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the\n Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation,\n or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way.\n - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the\n Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of\n a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain\n way.\n - clearly allege that the current published game state is\n incorrect, and in what respects.\n\n A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above\n conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for\n Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall\n defer to rules which explicitly permit CFJs that do not\n necessarily meet the above conditions.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495739,'zefram',NULL,663,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 663 by Proposal 663, 2 November 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may\n accompany certain Judgements of TRUE or FALSE as provided in the\n rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements\n specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a\n Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction\n must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by\n the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its\n publication unless one of the following conditions then apply:\n - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing\n appeal, currently UNDECIDED as a consequence of the appeal\n process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal\n has been published which would overturn that decision if\n passed, and said proposal has not failed.\n - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a\n pending CFJ.\n - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is\n undergoing appeal, currently UNDECIDED as a consequence of\n the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but\n a proposal has been published which would overturn that\n decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed.\n\n A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is\n specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction\n must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the\n time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter\n addressed in the corresponding judgement.\n\n If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does\n not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ\n to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the\n contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall\n be considered illegal and shall have no legal force.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.\n\n'),(495740,'zefram',NULL,663,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1487, 15 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may\n accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as\n provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of\n statements specifying an action or actions which must take\n place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that\n Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players\n must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours\n after its publication unless one of the following conditions\n then apply:\n - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing\n appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal\n process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal\n has been published which would overturn that decision if\n passed, and said proposal has not failed.\n - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a\n pending CFJ.\n - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is\n undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of\n the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but\n a proposal has been published which would overturn that\n decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed.\n\n A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is\n specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction\n must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the\n time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter\n addressed in the corresponding judgement.\n\n If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does\n not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ\n to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the\n contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall\n be considered illegal and shall have no legal force.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.\n\n'),(495741,'zefram',NULL,663,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may\n accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as\n provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of\n statements specifying an action or actions which must take\n place. If a Judgement is accompanied by an Injunction, that\n Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players\n must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours\n after its publication unless one of the following conditions\n then apply:\n - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing\n appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal\n process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal\n has been published which would overturn that decision if\n passed, and said proposal has not failed.\n - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a\n pending CFJ.\n - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is\n undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of\n the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but\n a proposal has been published which would overturn that\n decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed.\n\n A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is\n specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction\n must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the\n time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter\n addressed in the corresponding judgement.\n\n If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does\n not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ\n to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the\n contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall\n be considered illegal and shall have no legal force.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions.\n\n'),(495742,'zefram',NULL,663,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Judges shall, in certain situations when specifically authorized\n by the Rules, have the power to issue orders requiring one or\n more Players to perform (or refrain from performing) one or more\n Actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.\n\n An Injunction, in order to be legally made, must:\n\n * specify the Player or Players to whom it applies and the\n Action or Actions that Player or Players are required to\n perform (or refrain from performing).\n * accompany the Judgement of a Call for Judgement, of which\n the Player issuing the Injunction is the Judge; and\n * be an Injunction issued in a situation where the Rules\n specifically permit the Judge an Injunction to restrain a\n Player or Players in the manner specified.\n\n An Injunction which does not meet these criteria, or which has\n otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with\n the Rules, has no legal effect.\n\n A Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of\n the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies.\n\n'),(495743,'zefram',NULL,663,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 18 June 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Judges shall, in certain situations when specifically authorized\n by the Rules, have the power to issue orders requiring one or\n more Players to perform (or refrain from performing) one or more\n Actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.\n\n An Injunction, in order to be legally made, must:\n\n * specify the Player or Players to whom it applies and the\n Action or Actions that Player or Players are required to\n perform (or refrain from performing).\n * accompany the Judgement of a Call for Judgement, of which\n the Player issuing the Injunction is the Judge; and\n * be an Injunction issued in a situation where the Rules\n specifically permit the Judge an Injunction to restrain a\n Player or Players in the manner specified.\n\n An Injunction which does not meet these criteria, or which has\n otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with\n the Rules, has no legal effect.\n\n A Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of\n the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495744,'zefram',NULL,663,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2684, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge is permitted to issue orders requiring one or more\n Players to perform, or refrain from performing, one or more\n actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.\n\n To be legally made, an Injunction must:\n\n i) Specify the Player(s) to whom it applies.\n ii) Specify the action(s) the Player(s) are required to perform\n or refrain from performing.\n iii) Be sent to the CotC simultaneously with a Judgement which\n has been legally made by the Judge.\n iv) Be of a type explicitly defined in the Rules.\n v) Be issued in a manner consistent with the Rules.\n\n An Injunction which does not meet these criteria has no effect.\n\n'),(495745,'zefram',NULL,663,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), 16 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Judge is permitted to issue orders requiring one or more\n Players to perform, or refrain from performing, one or more\n actions. Such an order is called an Injunction.\n\n To be legally made, an Injunction must:\n\n i) Specify the Player(s) to whom it applies.\n ii) Specify the action(s) the Player(s) are required to perform\n or refrain from performing.\n iii) Either be attached to a legally made Judgement at the time\n that Judgement is originally delivered to the Cotc, or be\n legally made by the Board of Appeals in an Appeal of an\n Injunction.\n iv) Be of a type explicitly defined in the Rules.\n v) Be issued in a manner consistent with the Rules.\n\n An Injunction which does not meet these criteria has no effect.\n\n'),(495746,'zefram',NULL,663,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 663 by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495747,'zefram',NULL,665,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 665 by Proposal 665, 2 November 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the\n Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with\n the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be\n retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the published game\n state. The adjustments to the game state must have been\n unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments\n must only undo actions which were a direct or indirect result of\n that Move.\n\n'),(495748,'zefram',NULL,665,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1642, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the\n Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with\n the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be\n retracted, if the Judge thinks it is appropriate to do so. The\n Judge may also issue an Injunction specifying any adjustments\n to the published game state which result from the allegation\n being supported. These adjustments to the game state must have\n been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and they must be\n adjustments which occur as a direct or indirect result of the\n allegation being supported.\n\n'),(495749,'zefram',NULL,676,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1315, 12 November 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Add to the Registrar\'s duties the following:\n\n Responsibility for maintaining the two following \"phone books\":\n\n Nomic White Pages: List of all Players; their Nomic nickname,\n preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player)\n their real name. Each entry is annotated with one of these\n codes that indicate the current status of the Player:\n (A) - active player;\n (H) - on hold;\n (L) - left the Game;\n as well as the date the last change in status occurred.\"\n\n Nomic Blue Pages: \"Government Listing\". List of each Officer and\n other official Nomic positions (like Speaker), and the Nomic\n nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May\n also include other special official information like the address\n of the Nomic listserver, etc.\n\n Some latitude is granted to the Registrar in the formatting of\n these Directories. If necessary, restrictions will be imposed.\n The Registrar shall post them whenever e is required to post a\n list of Players. Additionally, e shall provide this information\n to any Player upon request.\n\n'),(495750,'zefram',NULL,676,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Add to the Registrar\'s duties the following:\n\n Responsibility for maintaining the two following \"phone books\":\n\n Nomic White Pages: List of all Players; their Nomic nickname,\n preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player)\n their real name. Each entry is annotated with one of these\n codes that indicate the current status of the Player:\n (A) - active player;\n (H) - on hold;\n (L) - left the Game;\n as well as the date the last change in status occurred.\"\n\n Nomic Blue Pages: \"Government Listing\". List of each Officer and\n other official Nomic positions (like Speaker), and the Nomic\n nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May\n also include other special official information like the address\n of the Nomic listserver, etc.\n\n The Registrar shall publish the Blue Pages in the Registrar\'s\n Report.\n\n'),(495751,'zefram',NULL,676,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1739, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar is responsible for maintaining the following\n information:\n\n Nomic White Pages: List of all Players; their Nomic nickname,\n preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player)\n their real name. Each entry is annotated with one of these\n codes that indicate the current status of the Player:\n (A) - active player;\n (H) - on hold;\n (L) - left the Game;\n as well as the date the last change in status occurred.\n\n Nomic Blue Pages: \"Government Listing\". List of each Officer and\n other official Nomic positions (like Speaker), and the Nomic\n nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May\n also include other special official information like the address\n of the Nomic listserver, etc.\n\n The Registrar shall publish the Blue Pages in the Registrar\'s\n Report.\n\n'),(495752,'zefram',NULL,676,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Registered Players,\n with their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, current\n On/Off Hold status, and the date the Player last Registered or\n went On or Off Hold. This list is known as the White Pages, and\n is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Offices and other\n official positions within Agora (such as Speaker), with the\n Nomic nickname of the holder of each position, and (in the case\n of Offices) when the last Election for that Office was and\n whether the Office is held temporarily. This list is known as\n the Blue Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(495753,'zefram',NULL,677,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1424, 7 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may\n send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce\n eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one\n week; if e does not, and the Speaker has not changed in that\n week, e is defined to have Abandoned.\n\n If the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a\n Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker\n becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen\n according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with\n the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir\n Presence as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc.\n but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. If a Speaker\n is replaced in this manner, e has eir score set to minus 2N\n Points upon becoming a Voter, where N is the number of points\n required for that player to win at the moment e becomes a Voter.\n\n'),(495754,'zefram',NULL,677,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may\n send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce\n eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one\n week; if e does not, and the Speaker has not changed in that\n week, e is defined to have Abandoned.\n\n If the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a\n Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker\n becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen\n according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with\n the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir\n Presence as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc.\n but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker\n who Abandons commits a Class A Crime\n\n'),(495755,'zefram',NULL,677,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2533, 13 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may\n send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce\n eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one\n week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all\n Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the\n Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have\n Abandoned.\n\n If the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a\n Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker\n becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen\n according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with\n the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir\n Presence as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the\n former Speaker\'s materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc.\n but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall\n request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker\n who Abandons commits a Class A Crime\n\n'),(495756,'zefram',NULL,677,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may\n send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce\n eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one\n week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all\n Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the\n Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have\n Abandoned.\n\n If the Speaker has Abandoned, then the Player who holds the\n Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n A Speaker who Abandons commits a Class A Crime.\n\n'),(495757,'zefram',NULL,677,'Amended(5)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may\n send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce\n eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one\n week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all\n Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the\n Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have\n Abandoned.\n\n If the Speaker has Abandoned, then the Player who holds the\n Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n A Speaker who Abandons commits the Crime of Speaker Abandonment,\n a Class A Crime.\n\n'),(495758,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1539, 4 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the\n Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:\n\n Promotor\n Assessor\n Justiciar\n Clerk of the Courts\n Assistant\n Rulekeepor\n Registrar\n Archivist\n \n \n\n with the order determined at the time the Call for Volunteers is\n made.\n\n Any Rule which requires a Speaker or Speaker-Elect to be filled\n according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter\n of Succession; if it does not, a Speaker or Speaker-Elect shall\n not be chosen according to that Rule, and this Rule takes\n precedence over such Rules.\n\n When the position of Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled,\n the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce\n that fact to the Public Forum in a Call for Volunteers. All\n Voters who are willing to fill the position shall indicate such\n in a message to the Arbiter of Succession, within three days of\n the Call for Volunteers. If there are no volunteers, the\n Arbiter of Succession shall make another Call for Volunteers.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the three-day period, and\n within four days after the end of that three-day period, the\n Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Voter, of those who\n indicated a willingness to fill the position, is highest on the\n order of succession. That Voter shall immediately\n become Speaker or Speaker-Elect, whichever position was to be\n filled. If e becomes Speaker, the old Speaker shall become a\n Voter.\n\n The Arbitration Period is defined as the period in the Order\n of Succession starting with the Call for Volunteers and ending\n with:\n 1) the announcement by the Arbiter of Succession of the new\n Speaker or Speaker-Elect;\n 2) the filling of the position to be filled by another method;\n 3) the time when it becomes no longer necessary to complete\n the Order of Succession, according to other Rules;\n 4) or seven days after the Call for Volunteers is issued;\n whichever comes first.\n\n If the Arbitration Period ends without any of the first three\n criteria for the end of the Arbitration Period being fulfilled,\n then a new Order of Succession shall begin to fill the required\n position, with the first Voter to post eir willingness to the\n Public Forum as Arbiter of Succession, excluding any Voters\n who have already served as Arbiter of Succession for this\n particular requirement to fill the position.\n\n'),(495759,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2500, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the\n Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:\n\n Promotor\n Assessor\n Justiciar\n Clerk of the Courts\n Rulekeepor\n Registrar\n Archivist\n \n \n\n with the order determined at the time the Call for Volunteers is\n made.\n\n Any Rule which requires a Speaker or Speaker-Elect to be filled\n according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter\n of Succession; if it does not, a Speaker or Speaker-Elect shall\n not be chosen according to that Rule, and this Rule takes\n precedence over such Rules.\n\n When the position of Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled,\n the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce\n that fact to the Public Forum in a Call for Volunteers. All\n Voters who are willing to fill the position shall indicate such\n in a message to the Arbiter of Succession, within three days of\n the Call for Volunteers. If there are no volunteers, the\n Arbiter of Succession shall make another Call for Volunteers.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the three-day period, and\n within four days after the end of that three-day period, the\n Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Voter, of those who\n indicated a willingness to fill the position, is highest on the\n order of succession. That Voter shall immediately\n become Speaker or Speaker-Elect, whichever position was to be\n filled. If e becomes Speaker, the old Speaker shall become a\n Voter.\n\n The Arbitration Period is defined as the period in the Order\n of Succession starting with the Call for Volunteers and ending\n with:\n 1) the announcement by the Arbiter of Succession of the new\n Speaker or Speaker-Elect;\n 2) the filling of the position to be filled by another method;\n 3) the time when it becomes no longer necessary to complete\n the Order of Succession, according to other Rules;\n 4) or seven days after the Call for Volunteers is issued;\n whichever comes first.\n\n If the Arbitration Period ends without any of the first three\n criteria for the end of the Arbitration Period being fulfilled,\n then a new Order of Succession shall begin to fill the required\n position, with the first Voter to post eir willingness to the\n Public Forum as Arbiter of Succession, excluding any Voters\n who have already served as Arbiter of Succession for this\n particular requirement to fill the position.\n\n'),(495760,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily\n according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to\n be:\n\n Promotor\n Assessor\n Justiciar\n Clerk of the Courts\n Rulekeepor\n Registrar\n Archivist\n \n \n\n This list shall specifically exclude the Speaker, and Players\n who are On Hold. Its order is determined at the time the Office\n is to be filled.\n\n Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled\n according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter\n of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be\n chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over\n such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall\n instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker\n as Arbiter of Succession.)\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of\n Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public\n Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily\n filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each\n Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a\n message to the Arbiter stating e does so.\n\n During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is\n held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession\n who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\n At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active\n Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the\n Office, and that player may no longer decline.\n\n As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall\n announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.\n\n Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of\n the Speaker-Elect.\n\n'),(495761,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily\n according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to\n be:\n\n Promotor\n Assessor\n Justiciar\n Clerk of the Courts\n Rulekeepor\n Registrar\n Archivist\n \n \n\n This list shall specifically exclude the Speaker, and Players\n who are On Hold. Its order is determined at the time the Office\n is to be filled.\n\n Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled\n according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter\n of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be\n chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over\n such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall\n instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker\n as Arbiter of Succession.)\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of\n Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public\n Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily\n filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each\n Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a\n message to the Arbiter stating e does so.\n\n During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is\n held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession\n who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\n At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active\n Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the\n Office, and that player may no longer decline.\n\n As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall\n announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.\n\n Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of\n the Speaker-Elect.\n\n'),(495762,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 2828 (Zefram), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily\n according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to\n be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n the Rulekeepor\n the Registrar\n the Archivist\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order\n of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be\n filled.\n\n Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled\n according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter\n of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be\n chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over\n such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall\n instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker\n as Arbiter of Succession.)\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of\n Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public\n Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily\n filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each\n Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a\n message to the Arbiter stating e does so.\n\n During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is\n held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession\n who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\n At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active\n Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the\n Office, and that player may no longer decline.\n\n As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall\n announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.\n\n Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of\n the Speaker-Elect.\n\n'),(495763,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily\n according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to\n be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n the Rulekeepor\n the Registrar\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order\n of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be\n filled.\n\n Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled\n according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter\n of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be\n chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over\n such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall\n instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker\n as Arbiter of Succession.)\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of\n Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public\n Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily\n filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each\n Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a\n message to the Arbiter stating e does so.\n\n During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is\n held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession\n who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\n At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active\n Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the\n Office, and that player may no longer decline.\n\n As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall\n announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.\n\n Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of\n the Speaker-Elect.\n\n'),(495764,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily\n according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to\n be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n the Rulekeepor\n the Registrar\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order\n of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be\n filled.\n\n Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled\n according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter\n of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be\n chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over\n such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall\n instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker\n as Arbiter of Succession.)\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of\n Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public\n Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily\n filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each\n Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a\n message to the Arbiter stating e does so.\n\n During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is\n held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession\n who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\n At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active\n Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the\n Office, and that player may no longer decline.\n\n As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling\n of the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall\n announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect.\n\n Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of\n the Speaker-Elect.\n\n'),(495765,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), 14 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily\n according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to\n be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n the Rulekeepor\n the Registrar\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order\n of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be\n filled.\n\n If there is ever no electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the\n Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order\n of succession who has not declined since there was last an\n electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. A Player declines by\n sending a message to the Public Forum stating e does so. If\n there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who\n has not declined, that Player may not decline.\n\n'),(495766,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), 14 September 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to\n the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Registrar\n the Rulekeepor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order\n of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be\n filled.\n\n If there is ever no electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the\n Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order\n of succession who has not declined since there was last an\n electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. A Player declines by\n sending a message to the Public Forum stating e does so. If\n there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who\n has not declined, that Player may not decline.\n\n'),(495767,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to\n the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Registrar\n the Rulekeepor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order\n of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be\n filled.\n\n If there is ever no Electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the\n Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order\n of succession who has not publicly declined since there was last\n an Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\n'),(495768,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to\n the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Registrar\n the Rulekeepor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that neither the Speaker nor any Unready Player appears\n in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time\n the Office is to be filled.\n\n If there is ever no Electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the\n Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order\n of succession who has not publicly declined since there was last\n an Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\n'),(495769,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the rules require that a conclave be convened, and no\n competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as\n possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall\n announce that e convenes a conclave, specifying a collection of\n cardinals and indicating that those cardinals are to convene a\n conclave. Provided that:\n\n (a) the rules require that the conclave be convened;\n\n (b) no competing conclave is currently convened; and\n\n (c) the collection consists of qualified cardinals,\n\n then as of such an announcement, a conclave consisting of the\n qualified cardinals is convened. A cardinal is qualified for a\n conclave unless the rules specify otherwise.\n\n The first seven days following the convening of a conclave\n constitute the posturing period. During the posturing period, a\n qualified cardinal may announce eir intent to become a pope.\n Any other player may publicly support or revoke support for a\n cardinal\'s claim until the posturing period ends.\n\n As soon as possible after the posturing period ends, the ADoP\n shall perform the following actions in order:\n\n (a) E shall determine the cardinal club, which is the collection\n of qualified cardinals with positive support from the\n populace and at least as much unwithdrawn support as any\n other qualified cardinal.\n\n (b) If the cardinal club has no members, e shall announce this\n fact, and announce the conclave was inconclusive.\n\n (c) If the cardinal club has at least one member, e shall select\n one of its members to be pope, then publish the list of\n members of the cardinal club, indicating which member is to\n become a pope. That member becomes a pope as of this\n announcement.\n\n The ADoP\'s announcement in (b) or (c) concludes the conclave.\n If the conclave was inconclusive, eir announcement of this fact\n shall constitute a valid call to conclave. If the conclave has\n not concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened,\n any player may announce that it is inconclusive; upon such an\n announcement, the conclave shall conclude with an inconclusive\n result, and a conclave must be convened.\n\n If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its\n holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the\n first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir\n announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s\n announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform\n the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that\n conclave.\n\n'),(495770,'zefram',NULL,680,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When the rules require that a conclave be convened and no\n competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as\n possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall\n convene a conclave by announcement, specifying the collection of\n qualified cardinals. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave\n unless the rules specify otherwise.\n\n The announcement is ineffective if the ADoP is not required to\n convene a conclave or eir announcement does not list all and\n only the cardinals qualified for that conclave. However, if\n errors are not announced until after 7 days after the conclave\n concludes, the results shall stand.\n\n The convening of a conclave initiates an Agoran Decision to\n determine the Pope, a decision in which quorum is zero, the\n voting period is 7 days, all Players are eligible voters, all\n qualified cardinals are valid options as long as they remain\n qualified cardinals, and the ADoP has the privilege of resolving\n ties as for elections.\n\n The ADoP\'s announcement of the cardinal chosen by Agora makes\n that cardinal the pope and concludes the conclave.\n\n If no cardinal may be legally chosen by Agora, the ADoP shall so\n announce, and the conclave concludes as a cliffhanger. If a\n conclave has not concluded within a fortnight from the time it\n was convened, any player may announce that it is inconclusive\n and thus conclude it as a cliffhanger. When an conclave\n concludes as a cliffhanger, this canon calls for a consecutive\n conclave to be convened to calculate the correct cardinal.\n\n If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its\n holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the\n first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir\n announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s\n announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform\n the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that\n conclave.\n\n'),(495771,'zefram',NULL,680,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 786 by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495772,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1423, 7 February 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e\n remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen\n according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the\n Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player,\n a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order\n of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n If a Speaker is replaced in this manner, e loses 10 points upon\n becoming a Voter, and, if the resulting score is greater than\n the average score of all Players, eir score is reset to the\n average of all Players.\n\n'),(495773,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1695, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e\n remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen\n according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the\n Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player,\n a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order\n of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner,\n the former Speaker shall lose 25 Mark, and e shall further be\n prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game.\n\n'),(495774,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e\n remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen\n according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the\n Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player,\n a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order\n of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner,\n the former Speaker shall lose 25 Marks, and e shall further be\n prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game.\n\n'),(495775,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2604, 26 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e\n remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen\n according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the\n Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player,\n a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order\n of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner,\n the former Speaker shall lose 5 Mil, and e shall further be\n prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game.\n\n'),(495776,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the\n Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner,\n the former Speaker shall lose 5 Mil, and e shall further be\n prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game.\n\n'),(495777,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the\n Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner,\n the former Speaker shall lose 5 Mil, and e shall further be\n prevented from nominating eimself for Speaker-Elect until the\n start of the next quarter.\n\n'),(495778,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the\n Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner,\n the former Speaker shall lose 1 VT, and e shall further be\n prevented from nominating eimself for Speaker-Elect until the\n start of the next quarter.\n\n'),(495779,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(8) Cosmetically by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing\n the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the\n Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner,\n the former Speaker shall lose 1 VT, and e shall further be\n prevented from nominating emself for Speaker-Elect until the\n start of the next quarter.\n\n'),(495780,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), 9 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker announces in the Public Forum that e is giving\n up the Speakership voluntarily, a Speaker Transition occurs.\n\n As soon as possible after the Transition is completed, the\n new Speaker shall bill the former Speaker one Voting Token.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this\n manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of\n Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the\n start of the next quarter, whichever is longest.\n\n'),(495781,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker announces in the Public Forum that e is giving\n up the Speakership voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2\n Infraction of Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker\n Transition occurs. This Infraction is to be reported by the\n new Speaker once the Transition is complete.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this\n manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of\n Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the\n start of the next quarter, whichever is longest.\n\n'),(495782,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If the Speaker publicly announces that e is giving up the\n Speakership voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2 Infraction of\n Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker Transition occurs.\n This Infraction is to be reported by the new Speaker once the\n Transition is complete.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this\n manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of\n Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the\n start of the next quarter, whichever is longest.\n\n'),(495783,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A conclave must be convened whenever any of the following events\n occur:\n\n (a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership;\n\n (b) the Speaker becomes inactive;\n\n (c) the Herald confirms an allegation that the Speaker is\n lawless;\n\n (d) a valid notice of deregistration naming the Speaker is\n published;\n\n (e) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the\n Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in\n which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified\n cardinals for the conclave;\n\n (f) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which\n case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals for\n the conclave;\n\n (g) no pope has become Speaker in the past six months;\n\n (h) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker; or\n\n (i) a conclave has concluded with an inconclusive result.\n\n So there\'s always hope\n that you can be pope.\n\n'),(495784,'zefram',NULL,681,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Agora exits from Conclave whenever a player becomes a pope.\n\n Agora enters into Conclave whenever there is no pope and one of\n the following triggering events occurs:\n\n (a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership, becomes inactive, or\n otherwise ceases to be Speaker without another player being\n installed as Speaker;\n\n (b) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the\n Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in\n which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified\n cardinals;\n\n (c) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which\n case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals;\n\n (d) no pope has become Speaker for the past six months; or\n\n (e) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker.\n\n As soon as possible after Agora enters into conclave, the\n Associate Director of Personnel must announce the fact and\n publish a list of qualified cardinals. All cardinals are\n considered qualified unless specifically restricted by the\n particular triggering event. If Agora is already in conclave\n when a triggering event occurs, Agora remains in conclave, but\n the qualification of each cardinal is modified to reflect the\n more recent event.\n\n While Agora is in conclave, any player may make a qualified\n Cardinal into a pope, with Agoran consent. If the legality of\n this action is not challenged within seven days of it being\n attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is\n subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n So there\'s always hope\n that you can be pope.\n\n'),(495785,'zefram',NULL,681,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 681 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495786,'zefram',NULL,688,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 954 (Ian), 25 July 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495787,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If, for any reason, an Office is vacant, that fact shall be\n announced by the Electioneer. The Electioneer shall be the\n Registrar; or in eir absence, the Speaker. All Players willing\n to hold the Office shall notify the Electioneer of that fact\n within three days of eir announcement of the vacancy. At the\n end of the three day period, the Electioneer shall randomly\n choose one player from those who indicated a willingness to hold\n the Office, and that Player shall become that Officer. This\n rule applies to Offices in general, and thus defers to Rules for\n specific Offices.\n\n'),(495788,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is \"held in the normal fashion\" if and only if the\n Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has\n neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it.\n An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be\n held temporarily.\n\n As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office\n which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is\n already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an\n Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The\n winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e\n resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.\n\n'),(495789,'zefram',NULL,689,'Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2454, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is \"held in the normal fashion\" if and only if the\n Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has\n neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it.\n An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be\n held temporarily.\n\n As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office\n which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is\n already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an\n Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The\n winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e\n resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.\n\n'),(495790,'zefram',NULL,689,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 28 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is \"held in the normal fashion\" if and only if the\n Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has\n neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it.\n An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be\n held temporarily.\n\n As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office\n which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is\n already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an\n Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The\n winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e\n resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495791,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2564, 6 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is \"held in the normal fashion\" if and only if the\n Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has\n neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it.\n An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be\n held temporarily.\n\n As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office\n which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is\n already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an\n Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. However,\n if the Office in question is that of the Registrar, the Speaker\n shall instead initiate the Election. The winner of that\n Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is\n retired or removed from that Office.\n\n'),(495792,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2639, 12 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Office is \"held in the normal fashion\" if and only if the\n Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has\n neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it.\n An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be\n held temporarily.\n\n As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an undelegated\n Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no\n Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall\n initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described\n elsewhere. However, if the Office in question is that of the\n Registrar, the Speaker shall instead initiate the Election. The\n winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e\n resigns or is retired or removed from that Office.\n\n'),(495793,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever there is an Office with no current Electee, for\n which an Election is not currently being conducted, the\n Registrar shall initiate an Election for that Office,\n as described elsewhere, unless the Office is that of\n Registrar; in that case, the Speaker shall conduct the\n Election.\n\n'),(495794,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), 15 November 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever there is an Office with no current Electee, for\n which an Election is not currently being conducted, the\n Payroll Clerk shall initiate an Election for that Office,\n as described elsewhere, unless the Office is that of\n Payroll Clerk; in that case, the Speaker shall conduct the\n Election.\n\n'),(495795,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), 15 January 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after an Office ceases to have an\n Electee (or is created without installing an Electee),\n the designated conductor of Office Elections shall\n initiate an Election for that Office, as described by\n other Rules.\n\n The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Grand\n Warden of the Oligarchy, unless the Office in question is\n that of Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; in that case, the\n designated conductor is the Speaker.\n\n'),(495796,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), 15 April 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after an Office ceases to have an\n Electee (or is created without installing an Electee),\n the designated conductor of Office Elections shall\n initiate an Election for that Office, as described by\n other Rules.\n\n The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant\n Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is\n that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the\n designated conductor is the Speaker.\n\n'),(495797,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after\n\n a) an Office ceases to have an Electee;\n b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or\n c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;\n\n the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an\n Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This\n requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.\n\n The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant\n Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is\n that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the\n designated conductor is the Speaker.\n\n'),(495798,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after\n\n a) an Office ceases to have an Electee;\n b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or\n c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;\n\n the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an\n Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This\n requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.\n\n The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Associate\n Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is\n that of Associate Director of Personnel; in that case, the\n designated conductor is the Speaker.\n\n'),(495799,'zefram',NULL,689,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An election to fill an office must be held whenever:\n\n (a) the office ceases to have an electee;\n\n (b) the office is created without installing an electee; or\n\n (c) an election to fill that office fails, and no election for\n that office is in progress.\n\n As long as an election to fill an office is in progress, no\n other election to fill that office may be initiated. An\n election is in progress from the time it is initiated until it\n is resolved.\n\n If a player required to initiate an election fails to do so as\n soon as possible, then any player may announce that the election\n has failed. Provided that this assertion is indeed correct,\n then upon this announcement the election fails.\n\n'),(495800,'zefram',NULL,689,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 790 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495801,'zefram',NULL,692,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1477, 8 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for\n any purpose, within the following limits:\n (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum\n (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points\n (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has\n (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more\n than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass\n this limit as a result of the transfer.\n\n If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points\n between two Players then each such transfer shall be in\n accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed\n as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of\n any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a\n transfer.\n\n All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever\n Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the\n current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then\n the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without\n breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have\n precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of\n Points.\n\n'),(495802,'zefram',NULL,692,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1560, 17 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may voluntarily transfer Points in eir possession to\n any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits:\n (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum\n (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points\n (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has\n (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more\n than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass\n this limit as a result of the transfer.\n\n If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points\n between two Players then each such transfer shall be in\n accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed\n as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of\n any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a\n transfer.\n\n All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever\n Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the\n current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then\n the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without\n breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have\n precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of\n Points.\n\n'),(495803,'zefram',NULL,710,'Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 847 (Garth), 3 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495804,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group is initially formed by a set of Players which has\n registered with the Registrar to form a Group; other Players may\n join later. Each Group has a Name, a Membership, a Vizier,\n an Ordinancekeepor, a Treasury, an Initial Set of Ordinances,\n and an associated form of Currency, called the Coins,\n where is the Name of the Group.\n\n 1. The Name may not be the Name of another Group.\n\n 2. The Membership is a set of Players; these Players are\n Members of the Group, and all other Players are not.\n\n 3. Synchronously with the registration of a Group, two\n positions are created known as the Vizier and the \n Ordinancekeepor, where is the Name of the Group. These\n positions are not Offices, and they may only be held by members\n of the Group. These positions may never be vacant while the\n Group remains in existence.\n\n The Vizier shall inform the Registrar whenever the Membership\n of the Group or the Ordinancekeepor of the Group changes. When\n the Vizier of the Group changes, the new Vizier shall inform\n the Registrar of the change.\n\n The Ordinancekeepor shall keep an accurate and up to date\n record of the current Ordinances of the Group.\n\n 4. The Treasury is a repository for Points and Currencies and\n has the same capabilities for holding, trading, and spending\n Points and Currencies as does a Player.\n\n 5. The Ordinances are a description of the operation of the\n Group.\n\n'),(495805,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group is initially formed by a set of Players which has\n registered with the Registrar to form a Group; other Players may\n join later. Each Group has a Name, a Membership, a Vizier,\n an Ordinancekeepor, a Treasury, an Initial Set of Ordinances,\n and an associated form of Currency, called the Coins,\n where is the Name of the Group.\n\n 1. The Name may not be the Name of another Group.\n\n 2. The Membership is a set of Players; these Players are\n Members of the Group, and all other Players are not.\n\n 3. Synchronously with the registration of a Group, two\n positions are created known as the Vizier and the \n Ordinancekeepor, where is the Name of the Group. These\n positions are not Offices, and they may only be held by members\n of the Group. These positions may never be vacant while the\n Group remains in existence.\n\n The Vizier shall inform the Registrar whenever the Membership\n of the Group or the Ordinancekeepor of the Group changes. When\n the Vizier of the Group changes, the new Vizier shall inform\n the Registrar of the change.\n\n The Ordinancekeepor shall keep an accurate and up to date\n record of the current Ordinances of the Group.\n\n 4. The Treasury is a repository for Points and Currencies and\n has the same capabilities for holding, trading, and spending\n Points and Currencies as does a Player.\n\n 5. The Ordinances are a description of the operation of the\n Group.\n\n (*Was: 714*)\n\n'),(495806,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group.\n\n A Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known\n collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its\n Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as\n the Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its\n Executor is known as the Group\'s Vizier.\n\n A Group has an associated form of Currency. The generic name of\n all Group Currencies is \"Coins.\" The specific name of a Group\'s\n Currency is Coins, where is the Name of the Group.\n\n Players within the Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are known as the\n Group\'s Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of\n the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must\n be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group.\n\n'),(495807,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group.\n\n A Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known\n collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its Compact\n is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known\n as the Group\'s Vizier.\n\n A Group has an associated form of Currency. The generic name of\n all Group Currencies is \"Coins.\" The specific name of a Group\'s\n Currency is Coins, where is the Name of the Group.\n\n Players within the Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are known as the\n Group\'s Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of the\n Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must be a\n Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group.\n\n'),(495808,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2035, 4 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group.\n\n A Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known\n collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its\n Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as\n the Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its\n Executor is known as the Group\'s Vizier.\n\n A Group is the Mintor of an associated form of Currency. The\n generic name of all Group Currencies is \"Coins.\" The specific\n name of a Group\'s Currency is Coins, where is the\n Name of the Group.\n\n Players within the Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are known as the\n Group\'s Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of\n the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must\n be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group.\n\n'),(495809,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2470, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group.\n\n A Group\'s Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known\n collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its\n Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as\n the Group\'s Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its\n Executor is known as the Group\'s Vizier.\n\n A Group is the Mintor of an associated form of Currency. The\n generic name of all Group Currencies is \"Coins.\" The specific\n name of a Group\'s Currency is Coins, where is the\n Name of the Group.\n\n Players within the Ordinances\' Jurisdiction are known as the\n Group\'s Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of\n the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must\n be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(495810,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Group\" is an Organization of Class Group; this Class is a\n valid Class of Organization.\n\n All Groups are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a\n Group\'s Compact is permitted to contain any Player, but no\n Player is permitted to be part of the Jurisdictions of the\n Compacts of more than one Group simultaneously.\n\n Each Group shall possess exactly one Treasury.\n\n A Group must have exactly three Foundors, who constitute the\n Group\'s initial Jurisdiction. Both the Administrator and the\n Executor of a Group must be part of the Jurisdiction of that\n Group\'s Compact.\n\n The following definitions pertain to Groups:\n * Ordinances: a synonym for a Group\'s Compact.\n * Ordinancekeepor: a synonym for the Group\'s Administrator\n * Vizier: a synonym for the Group\'s Executor\n * Membership: the Jurisdiction of the Group\'s Compact.\n\n'),(495811,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2725 (Swann), 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class\n of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a\n Group. An SLC associated with a Group is that Group\'s\n Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The\n set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is\n that Group\'s Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is\n not a Member of any other Group.\n\n A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the\n Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.\n\n'),(495812,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), 8 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class\n of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a\n Group. An SLC associated with a Group is that Group\'s\n Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The\n set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is\n that Group\'s Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is\n not a Member of any other Group.\n\n A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the\n Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(495813,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3606 (General Chaos), 9 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class\n of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a\n Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its\n Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The\n set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is\n that Group\'s Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is\n not a Member of any other Group.\n\n A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the\n Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(495814,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(10) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without Objection), 20 April 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class\n of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a\n Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its\n Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The\n set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is\n that Group\'s Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is\n not a Member of any other Group.\n\n A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the\n Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n Each Group is a Voting Entity.\n\n'),(495815,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), 31 October 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class\n of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a\n Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its\n Ordinances. A Group\'s Administrator is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor. A Group\'s Executor is that Group\'s Vizier. The\n set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC is\n that Group\'s Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is\n not a Member of any other Group.\n\n A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the\n Group\'s initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n Each Group has a Legislative Status.\n\n'),(495816,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its\n Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of\n Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership may contain any Player who is not a\n Member of any other Group. Initially, the Group\'s Membership\n must contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor\n and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of\n the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it\n dissolves.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority and a Legislative Status.\n\n'),(495817,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4032 (t), 24 July 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its\n Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of\n Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member\n of any other Group. Initially, the Group\'s Membership must\n contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group;\n if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n A Group\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:\n\n (a) A Group containing fewer than three Members: zero;\n (b) A Group containing at least three Members: one plus\n the number of Voting Entitlements it possesses, with\n a maximum of three.\n\n'),(495818,'zefram',NULL,714,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4153 (Michael), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its\n Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of\n Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member\n of any other Group. Initially, the Group\'s Membership must\n contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group;\n if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n A Group\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:\n\n (a) A Group containing fewer than three members: zero;\n (b) A Group containing at least three members: the number of\n Players divided by the number of Groups with at least\n three members, rounded down.\n\n'),(495819,'zefram',NULL,714,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 766 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495820,'zefram',NULL,717,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Not less than once each Nomic Week, the Notary must post a\n report of all Public Organizations in the Public Forum.\n\n This report shall contain:\n i) The Name and Class of each Public Organization.\n ii) The Players within the Jurisdiction of each Public\n Organization\'s Compact.\n iii) The identity of the Administrator of each Public\n Organization.\n iv) The identity of the Executor of each Public Organization\n which has Treasuries.\n\n'),(495821,'zefram',NULL,717,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Not less than once each Nomic Week, the Notary must post a\n report of all Organizations in the Public Forum. This report\n shall contain:\n\n i) The Name and class of each Organization.\n ii) The identities of the Administrator and Executor of each\n Organization.\n iii) The Players within the Jurisdiction of each Organization\'s\n SLC.\n iv) The identity of the Maintainer of each Organization\'s SLC.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation of any\n Organization, the Notary shall publish, in the Public Forum, the\n above information for that Organization.\n\n'),(495822,'zefram',NULL,717,'Amended(3) Cosmetically by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), 11 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Notary\'s Report includes:\n\n i) The Name and class of each Organization.\n ii) The identities of the Administrator and Executor of each\n Organization.\n iii) The Players within the Jurisdiction of each Organization\'s\n SLC.\n iv) The identity of the Maintainer of each Organization\'s SLC.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation of any\n Organization, the Notary shall publish, in the Public Forum, the\n above information for that Organization.\n\n'),(495823,'zefram',NULL,718,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player may resign from a Group of which e is a Member, at any\n time, by sending such a message to the Notary and the Group\'s\n Vizier. This rule takes precedence over all other Rules\n concerning Groups.\n\n'),(495824,'zefram',NULL,718,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the\n Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Compact when that Player sends a\n message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating\n that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group\n are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a\n message.\n\n This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being\n removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Compact by other\n means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.\n\n'),(495825,'zefram',NULL,718,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the\n Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Ordinances when that Player sends a\n message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating\n that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group\n are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a\n message.\n\n This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being\n removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Ordinances by other\n means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.\n\n'),(495826,'zefram',NULL,718,'Infected and Amended(4) Substantially by Rule 1454, 28 February 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the\n Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Ordinances when that Player sends a\n message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating\n that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group\n are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a\n message.\n\n This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being\n removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Ordinances by other\n means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495827,'zefram',NULL,718,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the\n Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Ordinances when that Player sends a\n message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating\n that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group\n are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a\n message.\n\n This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being\n removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Ordinances by other\n means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.\n\n'),(495828,'zefram',NULL,718,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 718 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495829,'zefram',NULL,719,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player not affiliated with any Group may become a Member of a\n Group at any time after creation of the Group, subject to the\n following restrictions:\n\n i) Membership procedures in the Ordinances are void if they\n conflict with the Rules.\n ii) No Player shall become a Member of a Group without eir\n sending a request for Membership to the Vizier of that\n Group.\n iii) A Player may never be a Member of more than one Group.\n\n Other Rules, and the Ordinances, may Provide additional\n Restrictions on Membership.\n\n'),(495830,'zefram',NULL,719,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player shall be added to the Membership of a Group only when:\n\n a) the Player to be added is not already a Member of another\n Group;\n b) the Player to be added has sent the Vizier of the Group in\n question a message requesting to be added to the Membership\n of that Group; and\n c) the addition of that Player to that Group\'s Membership is\n otherwise permitted by that Group\'s Ordinances and the Rules.\n\n'),(495831,'zefram',NULL,719,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 719 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495832,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1641, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Members of a Group must obey the Ordinances of that Group at\n all times, so long as the Ordinances do not conflict with the\n Rules.\n\n The Ordinances of a Group may specify:\n\n 1. how the Ordinances of that Group may be changed, or that\n they may not be changed. If the Ordinances do not so specify,\n then the Ordinances shall be changed only upon unanimous\n agreement of all Members of that Group.\n\n 2. the Vizier of the Group, so long as the Vizier is a Member\n of that Group. If the Ordinances of a Group do not so specify,\n the Vizier shall be the Player whose Application for that Group\n was received first by the Registrar, if e is still a Member of\n that Group.\n\n 3. the Ordinancekeepor of the Group, so long as the\n Ordinancekeepor is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances do\n not so specify, then the Vizier of that Group shall also be its\n Ordinancekeepor.\n\n 4. How the Points or Currencies in the Group\'s Treasury shall\n be spent, so long as it does not conflict with the Rules. A\n Group may spend Points or Currencies in the same manner as a\n Player. When Points or Currencies are to be spent from the\n Group\'s Treasury, the Vizier of that Group shall inform the\n Scorekeepor or Recordkeepor for the Currency, as is appropriate.\n\n 5. How the Members of the Group shall determine the manner\n in which the Group shall cast its Group votes. If the\n Ordinances do not so specify, the Group is prohibited from\n casting Group votes. The Group is also prohibited from casting\n any votes on a Proposal if it was not in existence at the\n beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal, or if it has\n less than three Members. The Group\'s Vizier is responsible for\n informing the Assessor of how the Group votes on a Proposal.\n\n'),(495833,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Member of any Group is bound to observe any Ordinance or set\n of Ordinances that conflict with the Rules.\n\n The Ordinances of a Group may specify the following:\n\n i) The Vizier of the Group, so long as the Vizier is a Member\n of that Group. If the Ordinances of a Group do not so\n specify, the Vizier shall be the Player whose Application\n for that Group was received first by the Notary, if e is\n still a Member of that Group.\n ii) The Ordinancekeepor of the Group, so long as the\n Ordinancekeepor is a Member of that Group. If the\n Ordinances do not so specify, then the Vizier of that Group\n shall also be its Ordinancekeepor.\n iii) How the Members of the Group shall determine the manner in\n which the Group shall cast its Group votes. If the\n Ordinances do not so specify, the Group is prohibited from\n casting Group votes. The Group is also prohibited from\n casting any votes on a Proposal if it was not in existence\n at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal, or\n if it has less than three Members. The Group\'s Vizier is\n responsible for informing the Assessor of how the Group\n votes on a Proposal.\n\n'),(495834,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Vizier\n of a Group shall be that Founder of the Group whose Application\n was received first by the Notary. If this person is no longer a\n Member of the Group, then the Group shall be dissolved.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\n If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled\n to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the\n Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast\n its Vote(s), it may not do so.\n\n A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did\n not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that\n Proposal.\n\n A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast\n Votes.\n\n The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s\n Votes to the Assessor.\n\n'),(495835,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2633, 4 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that\n Group specify; or if the Ordinances are silent, the Player who\n authored the Application to Create that Group (if the Group\n was not created by the Execution of a Application to Create a\n Group, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was\n first created). In any of these cases, if this Player is no\n longer a Member of the Group or is no longer a Player, the Group\n shall be dissolved.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\n If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled\n to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the\n Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast\n its Vote(s), it may not do so.\n\n A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did\n not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that\n Proposal.\n\n A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast\n Votes.\n\n The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s\n Votes to the Assessor.\n\n'),(495836,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that\n Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who\n authored the ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not\n created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who was the Vizier\n of that Group when it was first created). A Group\'s Vizier must\n be a Member of that Group.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\n If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled\n to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the\n Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast\n its Vote(s), it may not do so.\n\n A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did\n not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that\n Proposal.\n\n A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast\n Votes.\n\n The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s\n Votes to the Assessor.\n\n'),(495837,'zefram',NULL,721,'Infected and Amended(6) Substantially by Rule 1454, 8 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that\n Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who\n authored the ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not\n created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who was the Vizier\n of that Group when it was first created). A Group\'s Vizier must\n be a Member of that Group.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\n If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled\n to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the\n Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast\n its Vote(s), it may not do so.\n\n A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did\n not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that\n Proposal.\n\n A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast\n Votes.\n\n The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s\n Votes to the Assessor.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(495838,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(7) Substantially by Rule 721, 22 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that\n Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who\n authored the ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not\n created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who was the Vizier\n of that Group when it was first created). A Group\'s Vizier must\n be a Member of that Group.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\n If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled\n to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the\n Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast\n its Vote(s), it may not do so.\n\n A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did\n not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that\n Proposal.\n\n A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast\n Votes.\n\n The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group\'s\n Votes to the Assessor.\n\n'),(495839,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3608 (General Chaos), 9 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that\n Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Vizier shall be\n the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group, if e is\n still a Member of that Group. If the Group was not created by\n the Execution of a ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever was the\n Vizier of that Group when it was first created.\n\n If the Vizier thus specified is not a Member of the Group, the\n Group shall be dissolved.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\n'),(495840,'zefram',NULL,721,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that\n Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Vizier shall be\n the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group, if e is\n still a Member of that Group. If the Group was not created by\n the Execution of an ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever was the\n Vizier of that Group when it was first created.\n\n If the Vizier thus specified is not a Member of the Group, the\n Group shall be dissolved.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\n'),(495841,'zefram',NULL,721,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 721 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495842,'zefram',NULL,724,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1449, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Winner is the first Active Voter to achieve sufficiently\n many Points. The minimum number of Points required for Player X\n to Win is 10*N*(1+G/6), where N is the number of Players\n currently registered in the Game, and G is the number of Games\n which Player X has already won. The value (1+G/6) is known as\n the \"Handicap Factor\". If more than one Voter achieves this\n condition simultaneously, then all such Voters Win.\n\n'),(495843,'zefram',NULL,724,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2471, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Wins the Game if e is an Active Voter, and e possesses\n a number of Points greater than or equal to the number of\n currently registered Players times eir handicap factor times\n ten.\n\n A Player\'s handicap factor is equal to one, plus the number of\n Games that Player has previously won divided by six.\n\n'),(495844,'zefram',NULL,725,'Amended by Proposal 931 (Stella?), 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be for each Player one Currency called X Stock,\n where X is the name of the Player.\n\n The Dividend on Stock X shall be 2 Points or 5% of the Points of\n Player X on Friday Noon GMT (whatever is more).\n The Dividend shall be transfered on Friday Noon GMT to the\n Player (or Players) who holds Stock X.\n\n At the passing of this Proposal the Bank has possession of all\n Stocks. During the following week the Banker shall collect the\n bids in Marks. Those bids have to be made by the Players\n (either alone or acting together on the same Stock) in a message\n to the server. No bid shall be made, which can not be covered\n by the Marks in he bidders Bank account (to be verified by the\n Banker.)\n\n After one week each of the Stocks shall be transfered from the\n Bank to the highest bidder. If two or more bids for Stock X are\n exactly equal, the Stock shall go to player X (if one of the\n highest bidders), or to the Player with the lowest score.\n\n If a given Stock X is bought by Player X, the Marks of the bid\n shall be transfered from Player X to the Bank.\n If a given Stock X is bought by another Player (or Players) then\n Player X, the Marks of the bid shall go from this Player(s) to\n Player X.\n\n The Banker shall keep track of the Stocks held by each Player.\n\n'),(495845,'zefram',NULL,725,'Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be for each Player one Currency called X Stock,\n where X is the name of the Player.\n\n The Dividend on Stock X shall be 2 Points or 5% of the Points of\n Player X on Friday Noon GMT (whatever is more).\n The Dividend shall be transfered on Friday Noon GMT to the\n Player (or Players) who holds Stock X.\n\n At the passing of this Proposal the Bank has possession of all\n Stocks. During the following week the Banker shall collect the\n bids in Marks. Those bids have to be made by the Players\n (either alone or acting together on the same Stock) in a message\n to the server. No bid shall be made, which can not be covered\n by the Marks in he bidders Bank account (to be verified by the\n Banker.)\n\n After one week each of the Stocks shall be transfered from the\n Bank to the highest bidder. If two or more bids for Stock X are\n exactly equal, the Stock shall go to player X (if one of the\n highest bidders), or to the Player with the lowest score.\n\n If a given Stock X is bought by Player X, the Marks of the bid\n shall be transfered from Player X to the Bank.\n If a given Stock X is bought by another Player (or Players) then\n Player X, the Marks of the bid shall go from this Player(s) to\n Player X.\n\n The Banker shall keep track of the Stocks held by each Player.\n (*Was: 725*)\n\n'),(495846,'zefram',NULL,726,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank\n a number of Points equal to the average of the number of Points\n held by all Active Players, excluding those Players with\n negative Point holdings, at the moment e entered the Game. If\n there are no Active Players who possess a non-negative number of\n Points, the new Player shall instead receive zero Points.\n\n'),(495847,'zefram',NULL,726,'Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 14 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank\n a number of Points equal to the average of the number of Points\n held by all Active Players, excluding those Players with\n negative Point holdings, at the moment e entered the Game. If\n there are no Active Players who possess a non-negative number of\n Points, the new Player shall instead receive zero Points.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495848,'zefram',NULL,726,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1679, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank\n a number of Points equal to the median of the number of Points\n held by all Active Players.\n\n'),(495849,'zefram',NULL,726,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank\n a number of Points equal to the median of the number of Points\n held by all Active Players.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers which\n occur under this Rule.\n\n'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (495850,'zefram',NULL,732,'Amended by Proposal 823 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of each game let each Player that did not win have\n eir points be converted to Marks in a ratio of 50 points to 1\n Mark. The winner\'s points shall be taken away and e shall not\n receive any Mark\'s compensation for eis points.\n\n Marks for these conversions shall be awarded from the bank as\n directed by the Ruleset\n\n'),(495851,'zefram',NULL,732,'Amended by Rule 750, 1 March 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the end of each game let each Player that did not win have\n eir points be converted to Marks in a ratio of 50 points to 1\n Mark. The winner\'s points shall be taken away and e shall not\n receive any Mark\'s compensation for eis points.\n\n Marks for these conversions shall be awarded from the bank as\n directed by the Ruleset\n (*Was: 732*)\n\n'),(495852,'zefram',NULL,748,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 748 by Proposal 748, 1 December 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever the length of a Proposal is determined, any blank lines\n within that Proposal shall not be counted towards the number of\n lines in that Proposal. In addition, any lines which are\n required by legislation, including a Title or a Declaration,\n shall likewise not be counted towards the number of lines in\n that Proposal.\n\n'),(495853,'zefram',NULL,750,'Enacted as Mutable Rule 750 by Proposal 750 (Waggie), 1 December 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Proposal is Passed which Amends a Rule, that Rule\n shall also be Amended as follows.\n 1. If the last line of text of the Rule begins with \'(*\' and\n ends with \'*)\' then the characters \'/@\' shall be inserted\n immediately before the final \'*)\'.\n 2. If the last line of text of the Rule does not begin with\n \'(*\' and end with \'*)\' then the following line of text shall be\n appended to the text of the Rule: \'(*Was: @*)\'.\n 3. After clauses 1. and 2. above have been applied, the \'@\'\n which appears in the last line of text of the Rule shall be\n replaced with the Number of the Rule which was Amended by the\n Amending Proposal.\n\n'),(495854,'zefram',NULL,750,'Amended by Proposal 1069 (Steve), 4 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a number known as the Amendment Index, which is\n appended to a Rule\'s Number, separated by a forward slash, and\n which is equal to the number of times a Rule with that Number\n has been Amended. The default Amendment Index is zero; this is\n the value of a Rule\'s Amendment Index when the Rule is Created,\n and it is the value of the Amendment Index of every Rule unless\n it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise.\n\n If the Amendment Index of a Rule is zero, the Amendment Index\n need not be displayed with the text of the Rule. Otherwise, the\n Amendment Index shall be displayed in Official copies of the\n Ruleset, along with the Number and text of the Rule.\n Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update\n the Amendment Index.\n\n In addition, when a Rule is Amended, the Rulekeepor shall\n append to the text of the Rule an annotation giving the number\n of the Amendment, the Number of the Proposal which Amended the\n Rule, and the date on which this Proposal passed.\n\n Amendment Indices may be used for Official purposes and in\n Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a\n Rule and the Rule\'s current text.\n\n'),(495855,'zefram',NULL,750,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 October 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a number known as the Amendment Index, which is\n appended to a Rule\'s Number, separated by a forward slash, and\n which is equal to the number of times a Rule with that Number\n has been Amended. The default Amendment Index is zero; this is\n the value of a Rule\'s Amendment Index when the Rule is Created,\n and it is the value of the Amendment Index of every Rule unless\n it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise.\n\n If the Amendment Index of a Rule is zero, the Amendment Index\n need not be displayed with the text of the Rule. Otherwise, the\n Amendment Index shall be displayed in Official copies of the\n Ruleset, along with the Number and text of the Rule.\n Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update\n the Amendment Index.\n\n In addition, when a Rule is Amended, the Rulekeepor shall\n append to the text of the Rule an annotation giving the number\n of the Amendment, the Number of the Proposal which Amended the\n Rule, and the date on which this Proposal passed.\n\n Amendment Indices may be used for Official purposes and in\n Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a\n Rule and the Rule\'s current text.\n (*Was: 750*)\n\n'),(495856,'zefram',NULL,750,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1502, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Rule\'s Amendment Number is equal to the number of times a\n Rule having that Rule Number has been amended. The default\n Amendment Number is zero; this is the value of a Rule\'s\n Amendment Number when the Rule is Created, and it is the value\n of the Amendment Number of every Rule unless it is specified by\n the Rules to be otherwise.\n\n A Rule\'s Amendment Number shall be displayed in Official copies\n of the Ruleset, appended to the Rule Number, and separated by a\n forward slash. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to\n accurately update Amendment Numbers.\n\n Amendment Numbers may be used for Official purposes and in\n Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a\n Rule and the Rule\'s current text.\n\n'),(495857,'zefram',NULL,750,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1069 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(495858,'zefram',NULL,781,'Enacted as Power=1 Rule 781 by Proposal 781, ca. Dec. 20 1993',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For\n Judgement alleging that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has\n acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation\n of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the\n Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny submit a Formal\n Apology. This Injunction may also include a list of up to ten\n Prescribed Words. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at\n least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words,\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement, and posted in the Public Forum. Within 48\n hours of the posting of this Formal Apology, the Squealer must\n either submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s Apology be accepted,\n or submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s Aplology be rejected,\n but not both. No other Player may submit such a Proposal, and\n the Squealer may submit only one. If a Proposal to accept the\n Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject the Apology passes,\n then the Ninny loses 5 Points.\n\n'),(495859,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended by Proposal 908 (Lance), 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For\n Judgement alleging that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has\n acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation\n of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the\n Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny submit a Formal\n Apology. This Injunction may also include a list of up to ten\n Prescribed Words. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at\n least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words,\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement, and posted in the Public Forum within 72\n hours of the posting of the Injunction to the Public Forum.\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall lose 10\n points. Within 72 hours of the posting of this Formal Apology,\n the Squealer must either submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s\n Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s\n Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other Player may submit\n such a Proposal, and the Squealer may submit only one. If a\n Proposal to accept the Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject\n the Apology passes, then the Ninny loses 5 Points.\n\n'),(495860,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For\n Judgement alleging that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has\n acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation\n of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the\n Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny submit a Formal\n Apology. This Injunction may also include a list of up to ten\n Prescribed Words. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at\n least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words,\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement, and posted in the Public Forum within 72\n hours of the posting of the Injunction to the Public Forum.\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall lose 10\n points. Within 72 hours of the posting of this Formal Apology,\n the Squealer must either submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s\n Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that the Ninny\'s\n Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other Player may submit\n such a Proposal, and the Squealer may submit only one. If a\n Proposal to accept the Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject\n the Apology passes, then the Ninny loses 5 Points.\n (*Was: 781*)\n\n'),(495861,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1500, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE,\n then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology\n within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that\n Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n con-taining all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n ex-plaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n'),(495862,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE,\n then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology\n within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that\n Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n'),(495863,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2432, 30 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more\n Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit\n to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the\n publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully\n appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n'),(495864,'zefram',NULL,781,'Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 1 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more\n Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit\n to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the\n publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully\n appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(495865,'zefram',NULL,781,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 2789 (favor), 25 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the\n Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in\n violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more\n Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit\n to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the\n publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully\n appealed within 72 hours.\n\n By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words,\n containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed)\n explaining the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement.\n\n A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction\n including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s\n choice, and ordering that the Ninny\'s Formal Apology must\n include the Prescribed Words.\n\n If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots.\n\n The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to\n the Herald any Blots gained through this rule.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(497161,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2152,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1227766571,'Rule 2152/4 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n persons in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified person(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the\n rule in question.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(497162,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1023,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1227766571,'Rule 1023/23 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(497163,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2161,'Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1227766571,'Rule 2161/3 (Power=1)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\n (f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name\n is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it\n has no name.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(497164,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2146,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Indices','Indices',1227766571,'Rule 2146/1 (Power=2)\nIndices\n\n Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a\n total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum\n element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called\n positive infinity or unanimity.\n\n The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The\n ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The\n ratio of zero to any index is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(497165,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2162,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Switches','Switches',1227766571,'Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a\n switch, and specify the following:\n\n a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.\n No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.\n\n b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,\n exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other\n values are possible for instances of that switch.\n\n c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.\n That officer\'s report includes the value of each instance of\n that switch whose value is not its default value.\n\n At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one\n possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a\n switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.\n If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a\n possible value, it comes to have its default value.\n\n \"To flip an instance of a switch\" is to make it come to have a\n given value. \"To become X\" (where X is a possible value of\n exactly one of the subject\'s switches) is to flip that switch to\n X.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(497166,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2150,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5790 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1227766571,'Rule 2150/5 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is generally capable of\n communicating by email in English (including via a translation\n service) is a person.\n\n A first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All\n other persons are second-class.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5760 (comex), 16 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5790 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496834,'rcs','00000001.00000808',2198,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)',1220488685,'Rule 2198/2 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nMaking Contract Changes\n If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to\n it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using\n that mechanism.\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008'),(496835,'rcs','00000001.00000809',2156,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1220488733,'Rule 2156/8 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the\n following values and their numeric equivalents:\n\n Alpha - 8\n Beta - 5\n Gamma - 3\n Delta - 2\n Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and\n provinces)\n Savage - 0 (default for all other players)\n\n Changes to caste are secured.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008'),(496836,'rcs','00000001.00000810',2211,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5680 (Goethe), 3 September 2008','The Grand Poobah','The Grand Poobah',1220488778,'Rule 2211/1 (Power=2)\nThe Grand Poobah\n\n The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of castes.\n\n The Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player\'s caste by\n announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by\n the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case\n finds that e has flipped a Player\'s caste illegally (e.g. not\n as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the\n appropriate correct value as soon as possible.\n\n If a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped\n illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e\n has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the\n matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts\n and the Grand Poobah\'s ability to correct the issue, unless\n they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of\n this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to\n eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of\n each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order,\n at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet\n been chosen during the current procedure:\n\n 1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a\n player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling\n or exceeding the new caste:\n\n a) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha\n b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta\n c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma\n d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta\n\n 2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.\n\n b->c) While there are more than two Betas,\n flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma\n c->d) While there are more than three Gammas,\n flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta\n d->e) While there are more than four Deltas,\n flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5680 (Goethe), 3 September 2008'),(496837,'rcs','00000001.00000812',2198,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008','Making Contract Changes','Making Contract Changes',1221526553,'Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nMaking Contract Changes\n\n Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a\n mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5677 (ihope; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008'),(496838,'rcs','00000001.00000813',478,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Fora','Fora',1221618811,'Rule 478/25 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by unambiguously\n specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Any\n action performed by sending a message is performed at the time\n date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1905 (called 7 February 2008): Regardless of CFJ 1314, a message\nhas not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to\nreceive messages via the forum receive it.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496839,'rcs','00000001.00000813',2166,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Assets','Assets',1221618811,'Rule 2166/5 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely\n because its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[CFJ 1910 (called 10 March 2008): When an existing entity is defined\nas an asset, the change of its owner from \"undefined\" to the Lost and\nFound Department [Bank at the time of CFJ 1910] counts as a transfer,\nand fails if the Lost and Found Department is outside of the class of\nobjects that can own the entity.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(496840,'rcs','00000001.00000814',2019,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5693 (Goethe), 20 September 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1221955712,'Rule 2019/18 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title\n Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the\n larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes\n to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either\n hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done\n so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to\n that case during this period. If the Justiciar has done so,\n then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including\n (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the\n Justiciar, if possible.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the\n start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting\n limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be\n otherwise (rounded using the same method as the weekly update\n of EVLOD), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5606 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5693 (Goethe), 20 September 2008'),(496841,'rcs','00000001.00000815',2211,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5696 (Goethe), 20 September 2008','The Grand Poobah','The Grand Poobah',1221955794,'Rule 2211/2 (Power=2)\nThe Grand Poobah\n\n The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of castes.\n\n The Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player\'s caste by\n announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by\n the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case\n finds that e has flipped a Player\'s caste illegally (e.g. not\n as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the\n appropriate correct value as soon as possible.\n\n If a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped\n illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e\n has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the\n matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts\n and the Grand Poobah\'s ability to correct the issue, unless\n they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of\n this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to\n eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of\n each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order,\n at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet\n been chosen during the current procedure:\n\n 1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a\n player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling\n or exceeding the new caste:\n\n a) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha\n b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta\n c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma\n d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta\n\n 2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.\n\n b->c) While there are more than two Betas,\n flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma\n c->d) While there are more than three Gammas,\n flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta\n d->e) While there are more than four Deltas,\n flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon\n\n During the seven days immediately prior to the start of a month,\n the Speaker CAN publish an Honors List, indicating a list of\n players other than emself for promotion. If such a list is\n published, the Grand Poobah SHALL, during the Promotions step\n above, make as many legal promotions from this list as possible\n before making any other promotions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5680 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5696 (Goethe), 20 September 2008'),(496842,'rcs','00000001.00000816',1769,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5701 (ais523), 1 October 2008','Holidays','Holidays',1222914151,'Rule 1769/7 (Power=3)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the\n time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event,\n and\n\n a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at\n which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose\n of determining the time of the future event.\n\n b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the\n future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require events to be\n performed before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5701 (ais523), 1 October 2008'),(496843,'rcs','00000001.00000817',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)',1222914858,'Rule 1742/16 (Power=2)\nRule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.\n\n Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not\n otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or\n more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and\n governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have\n at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a\n Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract, the only\n appropriate sentence is DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with\n respect to a previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(496844,'rcs','00000001.00000817',2173,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008','The Notary','The Notary',1222914858,'Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008\n 2008'),(496845,'rcs','00000001.00000817',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)',1222914858,'Rule 2191/3 (Power=2)\nRule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied obligations\n on its current parties, and will not do so in the future in its\n current form, then any person CAN terminate it by announcing that\n it is obsolete.\n announcing that it is obsolete.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496846,'rcs','00000001.00000818',2197,'Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008','Defining Contract Changes','Defining Contract Changes',1222914882,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008\n 2008'),(496847,'rcs','00000001.00000820',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1223079184,'Rule 2169/7 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as,\n but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496848,'rcs','00000001.00000821',2154,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1223497142,'Rule 2154/13 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is\n resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated\n during the first half of the nominating period and did not\n refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and\n accepted.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a)\n if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL\n install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two\n or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an\n Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process\n is known as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start\n of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder. This\n requirement is waived if the office comes to have an\n active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496849,'rcs','00000001.00000821',2126,'Amended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','Notes','Notes',1223497142,'Rule 2126/56 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496850,'rcs','00000001.00000821',1504,'Amended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1223497142,'Rule 1504/28 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n \n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008'),(496851,'rcs','00000001.00000821',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1223497142,'Rule 2169/7 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496852,'rcs','00000001.00000821',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)',1223497142,'Rule 2191/3 (Power=2)\nRule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied\n obligations on its current parties, and will not do so in the\n future in its current form, then any person CAN terminate it by\n announcing that it is obsolete.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496853,'rcs','00000001.00000821',2193,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1223497142,'Rule 2193/15 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled\n\n The eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its Monsterising\n period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an\n ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising\n period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the\n chokey at that time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008'),(497289,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1228006444,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (9 January 2009): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(497287,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2147,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1228006444,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\nRule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(497288,'rcs','00000001.00000904',1727,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1228006444,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played\n on, until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of\n Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\n BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Unbirthday is defined to\n be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,\n since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire\n days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(496640,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect, either publicly or in response to a request for\n information which that Player is required to provide, commits the\n Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.\n\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of a message to an Officer which that\n Officer is then required to act upon commits the Class 4 Crime\n of Falsification.\n\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.\n\n A Player shall never be convicted of more than one of the above\n Crimes for the same act.\n\n'),(496638,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2614, 1 June 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of any message sent to the Public Forum or\n in response to a request for information which that Player is\n required to provide commits the Crime of Misrepresentation, a\n Class C Crime.\n\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of a message to an Officer which that\n Officer is then required to act upon commits the Crime of\n Falsification, a Class C Crime.\n\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement commits the Crime of Perjury, a Class B\n Crime.\n\n A Player shall never be convicted of more than one of the above\n Crimes for the same act.\n\n'),(496639,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of any message sent to the Public Forum or\n in response to a request for information which that Player is\n required to provide commits the Class 4 Crime of\n Misrepresentation.\n\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of a message to an Officer which that\n Officer is then required to act upon commits the Class 4 Crime\n of Falsification.\n\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.\n\n A Player shall never be convicted of more than one of the above\n Crimes for the same act.\n\n'),(496635,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 10 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Player shall present, as correct, information which e\n believes to be incorrect in any of the following:\n -a post to the Public Forum\n -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement\n -a response to a request for information which the\n Player is required to provide.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496636,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2043, 11 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Player shall present, as correct, information which e\n believes to be incorrect in any of the following:\n -a post to the Public Forum\n -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement\n -a response to a request for information which the\n Player is required to provide.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n A Player who violates this Rule commits a Class B Crime.\n\n'),(496637,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2548, 22 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be incorrect as part of any message sent to the Public Forum or\n in response to a request for information which that Player is\n required to provide commits the Crime of Misrepresentation, a\n Class C Crime.\n\n A Player who presents as correct information which e believes to\n be inccorect as part of evidence in a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement commits the Crime of Perjury, a Class B\n Crime.\n\n A Player shall never be convicted of both Misrepresentation and\n of Perjury for the same act.\n\n'),(496631,'zefram',NULL,1494,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1494 by Proposal 3656 (Repeal-O-Matic), 8 January 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496632,'zefram',NULL,1495,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1495 by Proposal 1664, 18 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n These exists a type of Nomic Entity known as an\n Aristocrat. An Aristocrat is a Voting Entity.\n\n An Aristocrat has a Default Vote and a Name. Each Aristocrat\n will Vote once on each proposal. Unless the Aristocrat is\n Influenced in a manner defined by these rules, that Vote\n will be the Default Vote. The Assessor keeps track of\n Aristocrat Votes, and those Votes are publishes in\n eir report(s) along with Player Votes.\n\n The number of Aristocrats is added to the number of\n Active Players for the purposes of determining Quorom.\n\n'),(496633,'zefram',NULL,1496,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1496 by Proposal 1665, 18 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists an Aristocrat whose Name is Fortinbras.\n Fortinbras\' Default Vote is FOR.\n\n There exists an Aristocrat whose Name is Augustine.\n Augustine\'s Default Vote is AGAINST.\n\n There exists an Aristocrat whose Name is Zombie.\n Zombie\'s Default vote is ABSTAIN.\n\n'),(496634,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1497 by Proposal 1667, 18 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n No Player shall present, as correct, information which e\n believes to be incorrect in any of the following:\n -a post to the Public Forum\n -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement\n -a response to a request for information which the\n Player is required to provide.\n\n'),(496629,'zefram',NULL,1494,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1494 by Proposal 1655 (favor), 14 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar, in consultation with the Speaker, shall develop\n and maintain a Welcome Message, welcoming a new player to Agora\n Nomic, explaining any subscriptions required to receive the\n Public Forum, how to obtain a current ruleset, and any other\n information, advice, and gossip as the Registrar sees fit.\n\n The Registrar shall send a copy of the Welcome Message to any\n Player who Registers for the first time, within a week of such\n Registration. In consideration for this service, the Registrar\n shall receive an additional point of Salary for any week in\n which one or more Players register for the first time.\n\n'),(496630,'zefram',NULL,1494,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1703, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar, in consultation with the Speaker, shall develop\n and maintain a Welcome Message, welcoming a new player to Agora\n Nomic, explaining any subscriptions required to receive the\n Public Forum, how to obtain a current ruleset, and any other\n information, advice, and gossip as the Registrar sees fit.\n\n The Registrar shall send a copy of the Welcome Message to any\n Player who Registers for the first time, within a week of such\n Registration.\n\n'),(496614,'zefram',NULL,1490,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1710, 12 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player possessing the Potato receives the following\n benefits:\n\n i) e receives five points from the Bank for every full Nomic\n week e possesses the Potato.\n\n ii) e receives ten points from the Bank for every EV e spends\n while e possesses the Potato. (These points are received\n at the time the vote is cast, and the Potato must be\n possessed at that time.)\n\n iii) e receives fifteen points and 1 EV from the Bank when\n another Player spends five points to transfer the\n Potato away from eir possession.\n\n The Player possessing the Potato suffers the following penalties:\n\n i) e loses two EVs for every full Nomic week e possesses the\n Potato and does not spend at least one EV while voting.\n (This does not apply during any Nomic Week in which no\n Proposals are up for vote.)\n\n ii) e loses half the EVs in eir possession (rounded down to the\n next integer) if e possesses the Potato at the End of the\n Game.\n\n Point changes as a result of this Rule are Reported to the\n Scorekeepor by the Assessor.\n\n EV changes as a result of this rule are detected by the\n Assessor.\n\n EVs lost are transferred to the Bank. EVs gained are\n transferred from the Bank.\n\n'),(496615,'zefram',NULL,1490,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1774, 6 November 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player possessing the Potato receives the following\n benefits:\n\n i) e receives five points from the Bank for every full Nomic\n week e possesses the Potato.\n\n ii) e receives three points from the Bank for every EV e spends\n while e possesses the Potato. (These points are received\n at the time the vote is cast, and the Potato must be\n possessed at that time.)\n\n iii) e receives fifteen points and 1 EV from the Bank when\n another Player spends five points to transfer the\n Potato away from eir possession.\n\n The Player possessing the Potato suffers the following penalties:\n\n i) e loses two EVs for every full Nomic week e possesses the\n Potato and does not spend at least one EV while voting.\n (This does not apply during any Nomic Week in which no\n Proposals are up for vote.)\n\n ii) e loses two EVs if e possesses the Potato at the End of the\n Game.\n\n Point changes as a result of this Rule are Reported to the\n Scorekeepor by the Assessor.\n\n EV changes as a result of this rule are detected by the\n Assessor.\n\n EVs lost are transferred to the Bank. EVs gained are\n transferred from the Bank.\n\n'),(496616,'zefram',NULL,1491,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1491 by Proposal 1653, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Currency known as a Win Token. Any Player may\n possess any number of Win Tokens, which are created, destroyed,\n transferred, and otherwise manipulated only according to this\n and other Rules.\n\n The Recordkeepor for Win Tokens is the Tabulator. The Tabulator\n is responsible for keeping track of the status of Win Tokens. E\n shall post to the Public Forum at least once per Week, a report\n of the number of Tokens currently possessed by each Player, as\n well as a description of the changes since the previous report.\n Additionally, e shall make a report as soon as possible\n following a Win By Tokens.\n\n Upon creation of this Rule, all Players start with 0 Win Tokens.\n When a Player joins the Game, e starts with 0 Win Tokens.\n Whenever a Game ends (for any reason), all Win Tokens are\n destroyed.\n\n'),(496617,'zefram',NULL,1491,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1491 by Proposal 1653, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Currency known as a Win Token. Any Player may\n possess any number of Win Tokens, which are created, destroyed,\n transferred, and otherwise manipulated only according to this\n and other Rules.\n\n The Recordkeepor for Win Tokens is the Tabulator. The Tabulator\n is responsible for keeping track of the status of Win Tokens. E\n shall post to the Public Forum at least once per Week, a report\n of the number of Tokens currently possessed by each Player, as\n well as a description of the changes since the previous report.\n Additionally, e shall make a report as soon as possible\n following a Win By Tokens.\n\n Upon creation of this Rule, all Players start with 0 Win Tokens. When a\n Player joins the Game, e starts with 0 Win Tokens. Whenever a\n Game ends (for any reason), all Win Tokens are destroyed.\n\n'),(496618,'zefram',NULL,1491,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2471, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Win Tokens are a Currency. The Recordkeepor of Win Tokens is\n the Tabulator; the Mintor of Win Tokens is the Mint.\n\n The Tabulator shall, at least once per Nomic Week, post a report\n detailing the number of Win Tokens held in each Treasury and all\n transactions involving Win Tokens which have occured since the\n last report.\n\n Whenever a Game Ends, all Win Tokens in existence are destroyed.\n\n'),(496619,'zefram',NULL,1491,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Win Tokens are a Currency. The Recordkeepor of Win Tokens is\n the Tabulator; the Mintor of Win Tokens is the Mint.\n\n The Tabulator shall, at least once per Nomic Week, post a report\n detailing the number of Win Tokens held in each Treasury and all\n transactions involving Win Tokens which have occured since the\n last report.\n\n Whenever a Player Wins the Game by Tokens, all Win Tokens in\n existence are destroyed.\n\n'),(496620,'zefram',NULL,1492,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1492 by Proposal 1653, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player not on Hold becomes the Winner (a Win By Tokens) when\n the number of Win Tokens e possesses is at least X greater than\n the number of Win Tokens possessed by any other Player at that\n time. X is the number of Players at the time the previous Game\n ended. The number of Tokens required to Win shall be listed by\n the Tabulator in eir report.\n\n'),(496621,'zefram',NULL,1492,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2471, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Wins when e is both not on Hold and possesses a number\n of Win Tokens which exceeds the number held by every other\n Player at that time by the number of registered Players at the\n time the current Game began.\n\n The Tabulator shall notify the Public Forum as soon as possible\n after a Player Wins by the application of this Rule.\n\n The Tabulator shall include in eir Report the number of Tokens\n currently required to Win by the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496622,'zefram',NULL,1492,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2693, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Wins when e is both not on Hold and possesses a number\n of Win Tokens which exceeds the number held by every other\n Player at that time by the number of registered Players at the\n time the current Game began. No Player already holding a Noble\n or higher Cup may Win in this manner.\n\n The Tabulator shall notify the Public Forum as soon as possible\n after a Player Wins by the application of this Rule.\n\n The Tabulator shall include in eir Report the number of Tokens\n currently required to Win by the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496623,'zefram',NULL,1492,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Wins when e is both not on Hold and possesses a number\n of Win Tokens which exceeds the number held by every other\n Player at that time by the number of registered Players at the\n time the current month began. No Player already holding a Noble\n or higher Cup may Win in this manner.\n\n The Tabulator shall notify the Public Forum as soon as possible\n after a Player Wins by the application of this Rule.\n\n The Tabulator shall include in eir Report the number of Tokens\n currently required to Win by the application of this Rule.\n\n'),(496624,'zefram',NULL,1493,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1493 by Proposal 1653, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n During each Nomic Week, each Player not on Hold may make 0, 1,\n 2, or 3 transfers of Win Tokens, in addition to any transfers\n permitted by default Currency Rules. These transfers occur when\n a Player sends a legitimate message to the Tabulator, requesting\n the transfer, which the Tabulator must record. The following are\n the only legitimate transfers, except that the default Currency\n Rules may permit other kinds of transfers as well:\n\n * 1 Token created and given to any Player, except the\n requesting Player.\n\n * 1 Token removed from any Player and destroyed.\n\n * 1 Token moved from any Player to any other Player except the\n Player making the transfer. This counts as two transfers.\n\n'),(496625,'zefram',NULL,1493,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1493 by Proposal 1653, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n During each Nomic Week, each Player not on Hold may make 0, 1, 2, or 3\n transfers of Win Tokens, in addition to any transfers permitted by\n default Currency Rules. These transfers occur when a Player sends a\n legitimate message to the Tabulator, requesting the transfer, which the\n Tabulator must record. The following are the only legitimate transfers,\n except that the default Currency Rules may permit other kinds of\n transfers as well:\n\n * 1 Token created and given to any Player, except the requesting\n Player.\n\n * 1 Token removed from any Player and destroyed.\n\n * 1 Token moved from any Player to any other Player except the\n Player making the transfer. This counts as two transfers.\n\n'),(496626,'zefram',NULL,1493,'Null-Amended(1) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n During each Nomic Week, each Player not on Hold may make 0, 1,\n 2, or 3 transfers of Win Tokens, in addition to any transfers\n permitted by default Currency Rules. These transfers occur when\n a Player sends a legitimate message to the Tabulator, requesting\n the transfer, which the Tabulator must record. The following are\n the only legitimate transfers, except that the default Currency\n Rules may permit other kinds of transfers as well:\n\n * 1 Token created and given to any Player, except the\n requesting Player.\n\n * 1 Token removed from any Player and destroyed.\n\n * 1 Token moved from any Player to any other Player except the\n Player making the transfer. This counts as two transfers.\n\n'),(496627,'zefram',NULL,1493,'Null-Amended(1) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n During each Nomic Week, each Player not on Hold may make 0, 1, 2, or 3\n transfers of Win Tokens, in addition to any transfers permitted by\n default Currency Rules. These transfers occur when a Player sends a\n legitimate message to the Tabulator, requesting the transfer, which the\n Tabulator must record. The following are the only legitimate transfers,\n except that the default Currency Rules may permit other kinds of\n transfers as well:\n\n * 1 Token created and given to any Player, except the requesting\n Player.\n\n * 1 Token removed from any Player and destroyed.\n\n * 1 Token moved from any Player to any other Player except the\n Player making the transfer. This counts as two transfers.\n\n'),(496628,'zefram',NULL,1493,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2471, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Player is permitted to make up to 3 Win Token Transactions,\n of the sorts described in this Rule, per Nomic Week. A Currency\n Transfer, as defined elsewhere, which involves Win Tokens is\n not a Win Token Transaction.\n\n The legal Win Token Transactions are:\n\n * The creation of one Win Token, which is then placed in the\n Treasury of any Player other than the Player making the\n Transaction; and\n\n * The removal of one Win Token from the Treasury of any Player;\n this Win Token is then destroyed.\n\n A Player who wishes to make a Win Token Transaction shall do so\n by notifying the Tabulator of the Transaction.\n\n'),(496648,'zefram',NULL,1498,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1498 by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), 15 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496649,'zefram',NULL,1499,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1499 by Proposal 1676, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules\n for a Contract, except:\n\n In the statement of the Bearerbond, one or more of the parties\n are identified only by unique abstract Role names (such as\n Bearer, or Party of the First Part and Party of the Second\n Part, or Feduciacrator, Honker, and Trusiast, or whatever),\n rather than being identified as a specific Player. At all\n times, exactly one Player is associated with each Role; the\n Player associated with a particular Role is known as the\n Rolebearer for that Role in that Bearerbond.\n\n All the copies of the Bearerbond sent and received during\n the setting up of the Bearerbond shall be accompanied by a\n statement clearly identifying the initial Rolebearer for each\n Role in the Bearerbond. All these statements must be\n identical.\n\n To change the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond, the\n current Rolebearer and the new Rolebearer notify the Notary\n of the transaction, clearly indicating which Role in which\n Bearerbond is involved (the notary may assign identifying\n names to Bearerbonds, or otherwise impose identification\n mechanisms as e sees fit). Unless the Bearerbond specifies\n otherwise, the Rolebearer for any Role may be changed in this\n way at any time. When any Rolebearer in a Bearerbond changes,\n the Notary shall notify all parties to the Bearerbond of the\n fact of the change, the Role invovled, and the identity of the\n new Bearer. The change of Rolebearer takes effect when the\n Notary sends this notification.\n\n All Rolebearers in a Bearerbond are in all ways parties to the\n Bearerbond. When the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond\n changes, the previous Rolebearer is no longer a party to the\n Bearerbond, unless e is explicitly named in the Bearerbond\n itself, or is the Rolebearer for some other Role in it.\n\n'),(496643,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1497 by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496644,'zefram',NULL,1498,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1498 by Proposal 1671, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Another Way to Win\n\n If, at any time, there is only one Immaculate Player, that\n Player may Win the Game by announcing this fact to the\n Public Forum, providing that Player has not also Won\n the previous Game in this manner.\n\n'),(496645,'zefram',NULL,1498,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2471, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Wins the Game if e is the only Immaculate Player, and e\n has correctly reported this fact to the Public Forum, provided\n that e did not Win the Previous Game in this same manner.\n\n'),(496646,'zefram',NULL,1498,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2693, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Wins the Game if e is the only Immaculate Player, and e\n has correctly reported this fact to the Public Forum, provided\n that e did not Win the Previous Game in this same manner.\n\n No Player already holding any Winner\'s Cup may Win in this\n manner.\n\n'),(496647,'zefram',NULL,1498,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player Wins the Game if e is the only Immaculate Player, and e\n has correctly reported this fact to the Public Forum, provided\n that e did not Win in this manner within the three months prior\n to this announcement.\n\n'),(496641,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4148 (Kelly), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of evidence submitted in support of a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement, or in response to a Judicial or\n Appellate Order requiring that Player to disclose information\n known to that Player, commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.\n\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of a public message, as any part of a response to a request for\n information where that Player was required to respond, or as\n part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then\n required to act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered\n an Officer.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, a false statement of fact is made\n \"willfully\" when the Player making it, at the time the statement\n was made, has the intention to make a false statement of fact\n and knowledge that the statement actually made was false.\n Particularly, a Player who makes a false statement of fact\n through excusable negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable\n reliance on the representations of another, shall not be\n considered to have willfully made a false statement of fact.\n\n A conclusion as to the interpretation of the Rules or their\n application to a particular situation is not a \"statement of\n fact\".\n\n'),(496642,'zefram',NULL,1497,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4273 (Murphy), 22 March 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of evidence submitted in support of a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement, or in response to a Judicial or\n Appellate Order requiring that Player to disclose information\n known to that Player, commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.\n\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of a public message, as any part of a response to a request for\n information where that Player was required to respond, or as\n part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then\n required to act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered\n an Officer.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, for a Player to \"willfully make a\n false statement of fact\", all of the following conditions must\n be true at the time the Player makes the statement.\n\n a) The Player must present the statement as if it were true.\n\n b) The Player must know that the statement is false. In\n particular, the following things are not willful: excusable\n negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable reliance on the\n representations of another.\n\n c) The statement is not a conclusion as to the interpretation\n of the Rules, or as to their application to a particular\n situation.\n\n'),(496652,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1500 by Proposal 1677, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a CFJ alleging that an Ordinance, Regulation, or Contract\n (hereinafter the Target) should be interpreted in a certain way\n is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an\n Injuction requiring the Ordinancekeepor of the relevant Group\n (in the case of Ordinances), the Contestmaster of the relevant\n Contest (in the case of Regulations) or the Notary (in the case\n of Contracts) to annotate the Target with the Statement in the\n CFJ.\n\n The annotation shall remain only until the Target is changed in\n any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer\n applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide\n the application of the Target.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the\n Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no\n longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is\n Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the Target.\n\n'),(496653,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a CFJ alleging that a Statute or a Warranty (hereinafter\n the Target) should be interpreted in a certain way is Judged\n TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction\n requiring the Administrator of the Organization whose Compact\n contains the Target to annotate the Target with the Statement in\n the CFJ.\n\n The annotation shall remain only until the Target is changed in\n any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer\n applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide\n the application of the Target.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the\n Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no\n longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is\n Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the Target.\n\n'),(496651,'zefram',NULL,1499,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2033, 4 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Bearerbond,\n whose Compact can also be referred to as Bearerbond.\n Organizations in this Class are created, maintained, and\n otherwise behave in exactly the same manner as Organizations of\n the Class Contracts with the only exceptions being those given\n in the Rules explicitly applying to Bearerbonds.\n\n'),(496650,'zefram',NULL,1499,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules\n for a Contract, except:\n\n In the statement of the Bearerbond, one or more of the parties\n are identified only by unique abstract Role names (such as\n Bearer, or Party of the First Part and Party of the Second\n Part, or Feduciacrator, Honker, and Trusiast, or whatever),\n rather than being identified as a specific Player. At all\n times, exactly one Player is associated with each Role; the\n Player associated with a particular Role is known as the\n Rolebearer for that Role in that Bearerbond.\n\n All the copies of the Bearerbond sent and received during\n the setting up of the Bearerbond shall be accompanied by a\n statement clearly identifying the initial Rolebearer for each\n Role in the Bearerbond. All these statements must be\n identical.\n\n To change the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond, the\n current Rolebearer and the new Rolebearer notify the Notary\n of the transaction, clearly indicating which Role in which\n Bearerbond is involved (the notary may assign identifying\n names to Bearerbonds, or otherwise impose identification\n mechanisms as e sees fit). Unless the Bearerbond specifies\n otherwise, the Rolebearer for any Role may be changed in this\n way at any time. When any Rolebearer in a Bearerbond changes,\n the Notary shall notify all parties to the Bearerbond of the\n fact of the change, the Role involved, and the identity of the\n new Bearer. The change of Rolebearer takes effect when the\n Notary sends this notification.\n\n All Rolebearers in a Bearerbond are in all ways parties to the\n Bearerbond. When the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond\n changes, the previous Rolebearer is no longer a party to the\n Bearerbond, unless e is explicitly named in the Bearerbond\n itself, or is the Rolebearer for some other Role in it.\n\n'),(496654,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a CFJ alleging that a Statute or a Warranty (hereinafter the\n Target) should be interpreted in a certain way is Judged TRUE, the\n Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction requiring the\n Administrator of the Organization whose Compact contains the Target\n to annotate the Target with the Statement in the CFJ.\n\n The annotation shall remain only until the Target is changed in\n any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer\n applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide\n the application of the Target.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the\n Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no\n longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is\n Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the Target.\n\n'),(496655,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Statute or Warranty\n should be interpreted in a certain way, and the Caller of that\n CFJ has included a list of Rules, Statutes, and Warranties\n relevant to that CFJ (which must include the Statute or Warranty\n in question), and that CFJ has been Judged TRUE, the Judge of\n the CFJ is permitted to issue an Injunction ordering the Player\n responsible for maintaining that particular Statute or Warranty\n to annotate the Statute or Warranty in question with the\n Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules, Statutes,\n and Warranties.\n\n Such an annotation shall remain only until any of the Rules,\n Statutes, or Warranties in the list of relevant Rules, Statutes,\n or Warranties is changed in any way, or until removed by another\n Injunction. While it remains, it shall guide the application of\n that Statute or Warranty.\n\n If a Call for Judgement alleges that the circumstances which led\n to an annotation of a Statute or Warranty under this Rule no\n longer prevail, and that CFJ has been Judged TRUE, the Judge of\n that CFJ is required to issue an Injunction ordering the Player\n responsible for maintaining that particular Statute or Warranty\n to remove said annotation.\n\n'),(496656,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2576, 21 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a SLC should be\n interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of\n Rules relevant to that CFJ. If the statement is Judged TRUE,\n the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring\n the Maintainer of the SLC in question to annotate that SLC with\n the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules.\n\n The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the\n list of relevant Rules, or the annotated SLC, is changed in any\n way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer\n applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide\n the application of that SLC.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the\n Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no\n longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is\n Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the SLC.\n\n'),(496657,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2684, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A CFJ alleging a SLC should be interpreted in a certain way must\n be accompanied by a list of relevant Rules, assembled by the\n Caller.\n\n If the Judge finds this CFJ\'s Statement TRUE, e is permitted to\n issue an Injunction requiring the Maintainer of the SLC to\n annotate the SLC with that Statement and the list of relevant\n Rules. This annotation, while it exists, shall guide\n application of that SLC.\n\n The annotation is removed once any change occurs in a Rule from\n the list of relevant Rules.\n\n If a Player believes that the circumstances leading to the\n Judgement no longer prevail, rendering the annotation\n inapplicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged\n TRUE, the annotation is removed.\n\n'),(496658,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that an SLC\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Maintainer\n of that SLC to annotate the SLC in question with the Statement\n of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide\n application of that SLC.\n\n The Maintainer of that SLC may remove such an annotation only\n when the SLC ceases to exist, or when required to do so by a\n valid Order. Annotations to an SLC may not be modified in any\n way except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Maintainer of\n that SLC to remove the annotation in question.\n\n'),(496659,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), 22 July 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that an SLC\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Maintainer\n of that SLC to annotate the SLC in question with the Statement\n of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide\n application of that SLC.\n\n The Maintainer of that SLC may remove such an annotation only\n if the SLC ceases to exist; if required to do so by a valid\n Order; or if the original Order to Annotate is amended, stayed,\n or vacated. The Maintainer of an SLC may vacate an Order to\n annotate that SLC Without Objection. Annotations to an SLC may\n not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Maintainer of\n that SLC to remove the annotation in question.\n\n'),(496660,'zefram',NULL,1500,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1500 by Proposal 4794 (Manu), 6 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496661,'zefram',NULL,1501,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1501 by Proposal 1680, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player (the \"Requestor\") asks the Ordinancekeepor of a\n Group for a copy of the Group\'s Ordinances, the Ordinancekeepor\n is obliged to provide it as soon as possible, without cost or\n other obligation on the part of the Requestor.\n\n If the Ordinances change during the time interval [R...P], where\n R is the time that the Requestor sends the request message and P\n is the time that the Ordinancekeepor Provides the information,\n then the Ordinancekeepor must provide the Ordinances as they\n existed at time R. Additionally, e most provide, for each time\n at which the Ordinances changed during this time interval, the\n time of the change and the Ordinances as they existed as a\n result of the change.\n\n'),(496662,'zefram',NULL,1501,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1715, 12 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a Player (the \"Requestor\") asks the Ordinancekeepor of a\n Group for a copy of the Group\'s Ordinances, the Ordinancekeepor\n is obliged to provide it as soon as possible, without cost or\n other obligation on the part of the Requestor.\n\n If, between the time the Requestor\'s request is made and the\n time the Ordinancekeepor fulfills the request, the Ordinances\n have been changed, the Ordinancekeepor must provide the\n Ordinances as they existed at the time of the request, and must\n additionally, for each change of the Ordinances which occurred\n between the time of the request and the time of fulfillment,\n give the time of that change and the state of the Ordinances\n as they existed as a result of that change.\n\n'),(496663,'zefram',NULL,1501,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization is Public unless the Rules defining its Class\n permit (or require) it to be Private.\n\n If its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an\n Organization is Public unless its Compact claims Privacy.\n\n The Compact of a Public Organization must be provided by the\n Administrator of that Organization to any Player on demand. If,\n between the time of the demand and the time the Administrator\n fulfills the demand, the Compact has changed, the Administrator\n must provide the Compact as it existed at the time of the\n demand, and must additionally document every change made to the\n Compact between the demand and its fulfillment.\n\n'),(496664,'zefram',NULL,1501,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1785, 13 November 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization is Public unless the Rules defining its Class\n permit (or require) it to be Private.\n\n If its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an\n Organization is Public unless its Compact claims Privacy.\n\n The Compact of a Public Organization must be provided by the\n Administrator of that Organization to any Player As Soon As\n Possible on demand. If, between the time of the demand and the\n time the Administrator fulfills the demand, the Compact has\n changed, the Administrator must provide the Compact as it\n existed at the time of the demand, and must additionally\n document every change made to the Compact between the demand and\n its fulfillment.\n\n'),(496665,'zefram',NULL,1501,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 8 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization is Public unless the Rules defining its Class\n permit (or require) it to be Private.\n\n If its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an\n Organization is Public unless its Compact claims Privacy.\n\n The Compact of a Public Organization must be provided by the\n Administrator of that Organization to any Player As Soon As\n Possible on demand. If, between the time of the demand and the\n time the Administrator fulfills the demand, the Compact has\n changed, the Administrator must provide the Compact as it\n existed at the time of the demand, and must additionally\n document every change made to the Compact between the demand and\n its fulfillment.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496666,'zefram',NULL,1502,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1502 by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At least once every Nomic Week the Registrar shall post to the\n Public Forum a Registrar\'s Report. The information contained in\n this Report shall include but shall not be limited to all the\n information pertaining to Players, Groups, Patent Titles, and\n Degrees which the Registrar is required by other Rules to\n record and to publish in the Registrar\'s Report. Other Rules\n may specify further things which must be included in the\n Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496667,'zefram',NULL,1502,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2038, 4 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At least once every Nomic Week the Registrar shall post to the\n Public Forum a Registrar\'s Report. The information contained in\n this Report shall include but shall not be limited to all the\n information pertaining to Players, Patent Titles, and Degrees\n which the Registrar is required by other Rules to record and to\n publish in the Registrar\'s Report. Other Rules may specify\n further things which must be included in the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496668,'zefram',NULL,1502,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a set of information known as the Registrar\'s Report.\n It consists of all the information that the Rules say is part of\n the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n At least once every Nomic Week the Registrar shall post the\n Registrar\'s Report to the Public Forum. A Registrar that fails\n to do so commits a Class C Crime.\n\n'),(496669,'zefram',NULL,1502,'Infected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, 8 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a set of information known as the Registrar\'s Report.\n It consists of all the information that the Rules say is part of\n the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n At least once every Nomic Week the Registrar shall post the\n Registrar\'s Report to the Public Forum. A Registrar that fails\n to do so commits a Class C Crime.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496670,'zefram',NULL,1502,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 2792 (Andre), 30 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a set of information known as the Registrar\'s Report.\n The Registrar shall maintain all the information in the\n Registrar\'s Report, and post the Report to the Public Forum\n at least once every Nomic Week A Registrar that fails to do so\n commits a Class C Crime.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall at least contain the following:\n\n 1. The White Pages, which consist of a list of all Registered\n Players, with their Nomic nickname, preferred email address,\n current On/Off Hold status, and the date the Player last\n Registered or went On or Off Hold.\n\n 2. The Blue Pages, which consist of a list of all Offices and\n other official positions within Agora (such as Speaker),\n with the Nomic nickname of the holder of each position, and\n (in the case of Offices) when the last Election for that\n Office was and whether the Office is held temporarily.\n\n'),(496671,'zefram',NULL,1502,'Amended(6) Cosmetically by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), 11 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar\'s Report shall at least contain the following:\n\n 1. The White Pages, which consist of a list of all Registered\n Players, with their Nomic nickname, preferred email address,\n current On/Off Hold status, and the date the Player last\n Registered or went On or Off Hold.\n\n 2. The Blue Pages, which consist of a list of all Offices and\n other official positions within Agora (such as Speaker),\n with the Nomic nickname of the holder of each position, and\n (in the case of Offices) when the last Election for that\n Office was and whether the Office is held temporarily.\n\n'),(496672,'zefram',NULL,1502,'Amended(8)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Registrar\'s Report shall at least contain the following:\n\n 1. A list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname,\n if any, preferred email address, current On/Off Hold status,\n and the date the Player last Registered or went On or Off\n Hold.\n\n 2. The identity of the Speaker and eir Term of Service.\n\n 3. The identity of the Distributor.\n\n'),(496673,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1503 by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Player performs an action which is designated by the\n Rules as a Crime, and further it has been determined by a CFJ\n that in fact that this action did take place and was in fact a\n Crime, then that Player shall be subject to the penalties for\n that Crime, as defined by the Rules.\n\n An action is a Crime only if there is a Rule which designates it\n to be a Crime. The fact that an action is prohibited by the\n Rules is not sufficient to make it a Crime. The designation of\n an action as a Crime does not in any way grant legal status to\n that action.\n\n A Rule which designates an action to be a Crime must also either\n specify an explicit penalty for committing that Crime, or\n designate that Crime to be one of several Classes of Crime\n defined elsewhere in the Rules. If a Rule designates an action\n to be a Crime, but does not either specify an explicit penalty\n or specify a valid Class of Crime, then that Crime shall not\n have any associated penalty.\n\n'),(496674,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2677, 26 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules can penalize Players for performing, or failing to\n perform, some specific action. Such penalized actions, or\n failures to act, are defined as either Crimes or Infractions.\n\n A Player shall only be subject to the penalty for a Crime after\n a CFJ has explicitly found that the Player has committed that\n Crime, or after an appeal to a Judgement finds so.\n\n A Player shall be subject to the penalty for an Infraction as\n soon as it is reported by the Officer in charge of detecting\n that Infraction.\n\n There are no Crimes or Infractions outside those defined in the\n Rules. If a Rule defines a Crime or Infraction without\n specifying an explicit penalty, or a class of penalty that is\n defined in the Rules, then that Crime or Infraction imposes no\n penalty.\n\n Any Rule that defines an Infraction must also specify the\n Officer in charge of detecting and reporting that Infraction,\n otherwise the Infraction imposes no penalty. Crimes are\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n Any penalties reported by unauthorized persons have no effect.\n\n'),(496675,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2700, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules can penalize Players for performing, or failing to\n perform, some specific action. Such penalized actions, or\n failures to act, are defined as either Crimes or Infractions.\n\n A Player shall only be subject to the penalty for a Crime after\n a CFJ has explicitly found that the Player has committed that\n Crime, or after an appeal to a Judgement finds so.\n\n A Player shall be subject to the penalty for an Infraction as\n soon as it is reported by the Player in charge of detecting\n that Infraction.\n\n There are no Crimes or Infractions outside those defined in the\n Rules. If a Rule defines a Crime or Infraction without\n specifying an explicit penalty, or a class of penalty that is\n defined in the Rules, then that Crime or Infraction imposes no\n penalty.\n\n Any Rule that defines an Infraction must also specify the\n Player in charge of detecting and reporting that Infraction,\n otherwise the Infraction imposes no penalty. Crimes are\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n Any penalties reported by unauthorized persons have no effect.\n\n'),(496676,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), 19 December 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules can penalize Players for performing, or failing to\n perform, some specific action. Such penalized actions, or\n failures to act, are defined as either Crimes or Infractions.\n\n A Player shall only be subject to the penalty for a Crime after\n a CFJ has explicitly found that the Player has committed that\n Crime, or after an appeal to a Judgement finds so.\n\n A Player shall be subject to the penalty for an Infraction as\n soon as it is reported by the Player in charge of detecting\n that Infraction.\n\n There are no Crimes or Infractions outside those defined in the\n Rules. If a Rule defines a Crime or Infraction without\n specifying an explicit penalty, or a class of penalty that is\n defined in the Rules, then that Crime or Infraction imposes no\n penalty.\n\n Any Rule that defines an Infraction must also specify a\n Player or Players who are authorized to detect and report\n the commission of that Infraction; otherwise, the Infraction\n carries no penalty.\n\n Any penalties reported by unauthorized persons have no effect.\n\n'),(496677,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any entity who performs an action defined by the Rules to be a\n Crime, or fails to perform an action where such failure is\n defined by the Rules to be a Crime, shall be subject to whatever\n penalty the Rules prescribe for that Crime upon the execution of\n a Sentencing Order executed consequent to a judicial finding\n that e did in fact commit that Crime.\n\n'),(496678,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction only if\n defined as such by the Rules.\n\n An entity may be convicted of a Crime only by a judicial finding\n that e has committed that Crime. An entity may be convicted of\n an Infraction only by announcement of a Player authorized by the\n Rules to report the commission of that Infraction.\n\n The commission of a Crime or Infraction may be penalized only as\n defined by the Rules.\n\n'),(496679,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction only if defined\n as such by the Rules.\n\n An entity may be convicted of a Crime only by a judicial finding\n that e has committed that Crime. An entity may be convicted of\n an Infraction only by announcement of a Player authorized by the\n Rules to report the commission of that Infraction.\n\n The commission of a Crime or Infraction may be penalized only as\n defined by the Rules.\n\n'),(496680,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were\n a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every\n player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged\n Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding\n agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.\n\n The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima\n facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and\n privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to\n be bound by the rules.\n\n Other rules may further differentiate the treatment of rules\n violations from the treatment of violations of other types of\n agreements.\n\n'),(496681,'zefram',NULL,1503,'Repealed as Power=3 Rule 1503 by Proposal 5104 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(497298,'rcs','00000001.00000910',2225,'Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Interest Index of Judicial Cases','Interest Index of Judicial Cases',1228363900,'Rule 2225/0 (Power=1.5)\nInterest Index of Judicial Cases\n\n Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by\n its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed\n by any player without 2 objections, or by the Clerk of the\n Courts or Justiciar without 3 objections.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497299,'rcs','00000001.00000910',2158,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009','Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)',1228363900,'Rule 2158/6 (Power=2)\nRule 2158/5 (Power=2)\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009'),(497300,'rcs','00000001.00000910',2226,'Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Judicial Rank','Judicial Rank',1228363900,'Rule 2226/0 (Power=1.5)\nJudicial Rank\n\n Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices.\n\n A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose\n interest index exceeds eir judicial rank.\n\n A player CAN flip eir judicial rank to any value by\n announcement.\n\n When a judgement is overruled on appeal, if the prior judge\'s\n rank is higher than 1, then it is decreased by 1, and e CANNOT\n increase it for 30 days afterward (the rest of this rule\n notwithstanding).\n\n \"District\", \"Circuit\", and \"Supreme\" are synonymous with\n judicial ranks 1, 2, and 3, respectively.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497301,'rcs','00000001.00000911',2179,'Foreign Relations','Points','Points',1228363940,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\n For each point axis:\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\nRule 2136/24 (Power=2)\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its parties that are active\n first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by\n the contestmaster to other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its parties that are active\n first-class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by\n the contestmaster from other parties by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\n\nRule 2187/4 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\nRule 2187/3 (Power=2)\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x\n + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n All other players have each of eir coordinates set to\n floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\n\n\n======================================================================\nForeign Relations\n A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including\n other nomics.'),(497252,'rcs','00000001.00000902',2169,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)',1227767728,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(497253,'rcs','00000001.00000902',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','','',1227767728,'Rule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(497254,'rcs','00000001.00000903',2177,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008','The Senate','The Senate',1227767884,'Rule 2177/8 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered\n continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days. The\n collection of Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report\n includes a list of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts\n until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session\n terminates 21 days after it was called. A Senator CAN terminate\n an emergency session without 3 Senate objections. Terminating\n an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor\'s report\n includes the dates when the most recent emergency session was\n called and terminated.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any first-class player who is a member of the roll call\n is a senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of\n the most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n While a proposal is in filibuster, its quorum is the number of\n eligible voters plus one, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5944 (Taral, ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5945 (root), 15 November 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008'),(497137,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2125,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1227766571,'Rule 2125/3 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if and only if:\n\n a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n b) It is ILLEGAL.\n\n c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which\n some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action\n CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the\n rules.\n\n f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and\n has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008'),(497136,'rcs','00000001.00000900',101,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5773 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','The Rights of Agorans','The Rights of Agorans',1227766571,'Rule 101/10 (Power=3)\nThe Rights of Agorans\n\n WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a\n game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must\n balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,\n BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or\n binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person\'s\n rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and\n legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over\n any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights\n contained herein.\n\n i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the\n ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or\n regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of\n changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules\n explicitly or implicitly permit it.\n\n ii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n v. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n vii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5773 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(496612,'zefram',NULL,1490,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1490 by Proposal 1647, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player possessing the Potato receives the following\n benefits:\n\n i) e receives five points from the Bank for every full Nomic\n week e possesses the Potato.\n\n ii) e receives ten points from the Bank for every EV e spends\n while e possesses the Potato. (These points are received\n at the time the vote is cast, and the Potato must be\n possessed at that time.)\n\n iii) e receives fifteen points and 1 EV from the Bank when the\n Potato is transferred away from eir possession.\n\n The Player possessing the Potato suffers the following penalties:\n\n i) e loses two EVs for every full Nomic week e possesses the\n Potato and does not spend at least one EV while voting.\n (This does not apply during any Nomic Week in which no\n Proposals are up for vote.)\n\n ii) e loses half the EVs in eir possession (rounded down to the\n next integer) if e possesses the Potato at the End of the\n Game.\n\n Point changes as a result of this Rule are Reported to the\n Scorekeepor by the Assessor.\n\n EV changes as a result of this rule are detected by the\n Assessor. EVs lost are transferred to the Bank. EVs gained are\n transferred from the Bank.\n\n'),(496613,'zefram',NULL,1490,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1490 by Proposal 1647, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Player possessing the Potato receives the following\n benefits:\n\n i) e receives five points from the Bank for every full Nomic\n week e possesses the Potato.\n\n ii) e receives ten points from the Bank for every EV e spends\n while e possesses the Potato. (These points are received\n at the time the vote is cast, and the Potato must be\n possessed at that time.)\n\n iii) e receives fifteen points and 1 EV from the Bank when the\n Potato is transferred away from eir possession.\n\n The Player possessing the Potato suffers the following penalties:\n\n i) e loses two EVs for every full Nomic week e possesses the\n Potato and does not spend at least one EV while voting.\n (This does not apply during any Nomic Week in which no\n Proposals are up for vote.)\n\n ii) e loses half the EVs in eir possession (rounded down to the\n next integer) if e possesses the Potato at the End of the\n Game.\n\n Point changes as a result of this Rule are Reported to the\n Scorekeepor by the Assessor.\n\n EV changes as a result of this rule are detected by the\n Assessor.\n\n EVs lost are transferred to the Bank. EVs gained are\n transferred from the Bank.\n\n'),(496611,'zefram',NULL,1489,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1489 by Proposal 1647, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who does not possess the Potato can spend five points\n to transfer the Potato to any Player who can legally own the\n Potato. (This can even be to the transferring Player, provided\n e may possess the Potato.) Each Player is limited to one such\n transfer every week.\n\n The transfer is made when the transferring Player posts a\n message in the Public Forum, reporting to the Assessor which\n Player the Potato is being transferred to. If the Player being\n transferred to is eligible to possess the Potato, and the\n transferring Player possesses at least five points, the transfer\n is made and the Assessor reports the transferring Player\'s score\n change to the Scorekeepor. The five points go to the Bank.\n\n'),(496610,'zefram',NULL,1488,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1763, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Entity known as the Nomic Potato. There is only\n one Potato which cannot be destroyed. The Potato can be\n possessed by any Agora Player who owns Extra Votes (EVs). A\n Player with no EVs cannot possess the Potato, and if the Player\n possessing the Potato ever ceases to own EVs, e also loses\n possession of the Potato.\n\n If the Potato\'s possessor ceases to possess the Potato though\n ceasing to own EVs, or ceasing to be a Player, or in any other\n way not otherwise described by the Rules pertaining to the Nomic\n Potato, the possession of the Potato immediately passes to the\n Player who owns the greatest number of EVs.\n\n If more than one Player is tied for the greatest number of EVs,\n the Potato is transferred to the tied Player who:\n\n i) Has not previously possessed the Potato; providing all\n other tied Players have previously possessed the Potato.\n\n ii) Has not possessed the Potato for the longest consecutive\n period of time immediately prior to the Potato\'s transfer;\n providing all other tied Players have previously possessed\n the Potato.\n\n iii) has been randomly selected by the Assessor,\n provided neither i) or ii) apply.\n\n As long as at least one Player owns EVs, the Potato is always in\n some Player\'s possession. The only time that the Potato is not\n possessed by a Player is when no Player owns EVs.\n\n The Assessor keeps track of who possesses the Potato.\n\n'),(496606,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1486 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496607,'zefram',NULL,1487,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1487 by Proposal 1639, 25 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n It is permissible for the \"Procedure To Impeach An Officer\", as\n defined in another Rule, to be used for the Offices of Promotor\n and Assessor.\n\n'),(496608,'zefram',NULL,1488,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1488 by Proposal 1647, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Entity known as the Nomic Potato. There is only\n one Potato which cannot be destroyed. The Potato can be\n possessed by any Agora Player who owns Extra Votes (EVs). A\n Player with no EVs cannot possess the Potato, and if the Player\n possessing the Potato ever ceases to own EVs, e also loses\n possession of the Potato.\n\n If the Potato\'s possessor ceases to possess the Potato though\n ceasing to own EVs, or ceasing to be a Player, or in any other\n way not otherwise described by the Rules pertaining to the Nomic\n Potato, the possession of the Potato immediately passes to the\n Player who owns the greatest number of EVs.\n\n If more than one Player is tied for the greatest number of EVs,\n the Potato is transferred to the tied Player who:\n\n i) Has not previously possessed the Potato; providing all\n other tied Players have previously possessed the Potato.\n\n ii) Has not possessed the Potato for the longest consecutive\n period of time immediately prior to the Potato\'s transfer;\n providing all other tied Players have previously possessed\n the Potato.\n\n iii) The tied Player randomly determined by the Assessor,\n provided neither i) or ii) apply.\n\n As long as at least one Player owns EVs, the Potato is always in\n some Player\'s possession. The only time that the Potato is not\n possessed by a Player is when no Player owns EVs.\n\n The Assessor keeps track of who possesses the Potato.\n\n'),(496609,'zefram',NULL,1488,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1488 by Proposal 1647, 6 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Entity known as the Nomic Potato. There is only one\n Potato which cannot be destroyed. The Potato can be possessed by\n any Agora Player who owns Extra Votes (EVs). A Player with no EVs\n cannot possess the Potato, and if the Player possessing the Potato\n ever ceases to own EVs, e also loses possession of the Potato.\n\n If the Potato\'s possessor ceases to possess the Potato though\n ceasing to own EVs, or ceasing to be a Player, or in any other way\n not otherwise described by the Rules pertaining to the Nomic Potato,\n the possession of the Potato immediately passes to the Player who\n owns the greatest number of EVs.\n\n If more than one Player is tied for the greatest number of EVs, the\n Potato is transferred to the tied Player who:\n\n i) Has not previously possessed the Potato; providing all other\n tied Players have previously possessed the Potato.\n\n ii) Has not possessed the Potato for the longest consecutive period\n of time immediately prior to the Potato\'s transfer; providing\n all other tied Players have previously possessed the Potato.\n\n iii) The tied Player randomly determined by the Assessor, provided\n neither i) or ii) apply.\n\n As long as at least one Player owns EVs, the Potato is always in\n some Player\'s possession. The only time that the Potato is not\n possessed by a Player is when no Player owns EVs.\n\n The Assessor keeps track of who possesses the Potato.\n\n'),(496596,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), 23 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text\n containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be\n listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the\n Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the\n meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience\n for the Players.\n\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for\n the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the\n new Rule\'s Title.\n\n The Rulekeepor is authorized to change the Title of a Rule\n Without Objection.\n\n'),(496597,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Rule has a Title, which is a single line of text\n containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be\n listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the\n Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the\n meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience\n for the Players.\n\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for\n the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the\n new Rule\'s Title.\n\n The Rulekeepor is authorized to change the Title of a Rule\n Without Objection.\n\n'),(496598,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1485 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496599,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1486 by Proposal 1638, 25 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n This Rule defines the \"Procedure To Impeach An Officer\". This\n Rule applies only to certain Offices, as defined by other Rules.\n\n An Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the\n Impeachment of the Officer passes. Any Active Player is\n permitted to call such a Referendum at any time, by requesting\n such to the Public Forum.\n\n The Referendum must list both the Office and the Player holding\n this Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named\n Player is holding the named Office, then that Player is\n immediately removed from that Office, and that Office becomes\n Vacant.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is\n modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for\n the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the\n Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio is\n 2.\n\n'),(496600,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n This Rule defines the \"Procedure To Impeach An Officer\". This\n Rule applies only to certain Offices, as defined by other Rules.\n\n An Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the\n Impeachment of the Officer passes. Any Active Player is\n permitted to call such a Referendum at any time, by requesting\n such to the Public Forum.\n\n The Referendum must list both the Office and the Player holding\n this Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named\n Player is holding the named Office, then that Player is\n immediately removed from that Office.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is\n modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for\n the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the\n Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio is\n 2.\n\n'),(496601,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2577, 21 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the\n Impeachment of the Officer passes. Any Active Player is\n permitted to call such a Referendum at any time, by requesting\n such to the Public Forum.\n\n The Referendum must list both the Office and the Player holding\n this Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named\n Player is holding the named Office, then that Player is\n immediately removed from that Office.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is\n modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for\n the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the\n Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio is\n 2.\n\n This procedure shall only apply to the Offices of Assessor and\n Promotor, or to any Office of which the Rules explicitly state\n that this procedure applies to.\n\n'),(496594,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text\n containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be\n listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the\n Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the\n meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience\n for the Players.\n\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for\n the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the\n new Rule\'s Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n A Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Directive\n must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new\n Title.\n\n'),(496595,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text\n containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be\n listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the\n Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the\n meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience\n for the Players.\n\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for\n the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the\n new Rule\'s Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n'),(496586,'zefram',NULL,1484,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At no time may the a Player hold the Office of Clerk of the\n Courts while simultaneously holding either the Office of\n Promotor or the Office of Assessor. Any Move which would cause\n this to occur does not take place, and the Office (or Offices)\n which that Player whould have assumed instead becomes Vacant and\n shall then be filled according to the appropriate Rules.\n\n This Rule shall not be construed so as to prevent the Speaker\n from fulfilling the duties of any of these Offices in the event\n of a vacancy. However, the Speaker is highly encouraged to\n delegate eir duties for one or more of these Offices to other\n Players, should such a conflict arise as a result of Vacancies.\n\n'),(496587,'zefram',NULL,1484,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At no time may the a Player hold the Office of Clerk of the\n Courts while simultaneously holding either the Office of\n Promotor or the Office of Assessor. Any Move which would cause\n this to occur does not take place, and the Office (or Offices)\n which that Player would have assumed instead becomes Vacant and\n shall then be filled according to the appropriate Rules.\n\n This Rule shall not be construed so as to prevent the Speaker\n from fulfilling the duties of any of these Offices in the event\n of a vacancy. However, the Speaker is highly encouraged to\n delegate eir duties for one or more of these Offices to other\n Players, should such a conflict arise as a result of Vacancies.\n\n'),(496588,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1485 by Proposal 1634, 25 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg\n not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the\n Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of\n the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the\n Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once\n assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and\n other Rules.\n\n For a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:\n\n If the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body\n of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. If not, then the Title\n of the Proposal is assigned if the Proposal contained only one\n Rule Change; otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n For a new Rule created by other means:\n\n If the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies\n a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned.\n Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n A Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Adoption Index\n of a Proposal containing such a Directive must be at least as\n great as the Mutability Index of the Rule. The Directive must\n unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.\n\n Titles for old Rules with no Titles:\n\n If a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when\n this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for\n that Rule.\n\n'),(496589,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1485 by Proposal 1634, 25 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg\n not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the\n Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of\n the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the\n Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once\n assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and\n other Rules.\n\n For a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:\n\n If the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body\n of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. If not, then the Title\n of the Proposal is assigned if the Proposal contained only one\n Rule Change; otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n For a new Rule created by other means:\n\n If the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies\n a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned.\n Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n A Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Adoption Index of a\n Proposal containing such a Directive must be at least as great\n as the Mutability Index of the Rule. The Directive must\n unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new Title.\n\n Titles for old Rules with no Titles:\n\n If a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when\n this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for\n that Rule.\n\n'),(496605,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Amended(???) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An active player (the Witch Hunter) may hold a referendum to\n remove an officer from office. For this referendum:\n\n (a) The set of eligible voters is the set of active players\n besides the Witch Hunter and the named officer.\n\n (b) The adoption index is 2.\n\n (c) \"BURN THE WITCH\" is a synonym for \"FOR\".\n\n (d) \"LET THE WITCH LIVE\" is a synonym for \"AGAINST\".\n\n (e) \"OF COURSE THE WITCH IS GUILTY, BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT OTHER\n PEOPLE THINK\" is a synonym for \"PRESENT\".\n\n If the referendum is adopted, it shall have the effect of\n removing the named player from the named office if e is electee\n to that office.\n\n'),(496604,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Active Player is permitted to call a Referendum to\n Impeach an Officer at any time, by publicly requesting such.\n The Officer is Impeached when such a Referendum is passed.\n\n The Referendum must list both the Office and the current\n Electee to that Office by name. If upon passage of the\n Referendum the named Player is the current Electee of\n that Office, then the Player is immediately removed\n from Office.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is\n modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for\n the Impeachment Referendum. Voters do not include the Officer\n under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio must be\n greater than or equal to 2 for the Referendum to pass.\n\n'),(496603,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Active Player is permitted to call a Referendum to\n Impeach an Officer at any time, by requesting such in\n the Public Forum. The Officer is Impeached when such a\n Referendum is passed.\n\n The Referendum must list both the Office and the current\n Electee to that Office by name. If upon passage of the\n Referendum the named Player is the current Electee of\n that Office, then the Player is immediately removed\n from Office.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is\n modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for\n the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the\n Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio must\n be greater than or equal to 2 for the Referendum to pass.\n\n'),(496602,'zefram',NULL,1486,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2668, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Officer is Impeached when a Referendum calling for the\n Impeachment of the Officer passes. Any Active Player is\n permitted to call such a Referendum at any time, by requesting\n such to the Public Forum.\n\n The Referendum must list both the Office and the Player holding\n this Office by name. If upon passage of the Referendum the named\n Player is holding the named Office, then that Player is\n immediately removed from that Office.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is\n modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for\n the Impeachment Referendum. Voting Entities do not include the\n Officer under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio is\n 2.\n\n'),(496593,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text\n containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed\n by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not\n part of the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of\n the Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles,\n once assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this\n and other Rules.\n\n For a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:\n\n If the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body\n of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. Otherwise the\n Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n For a new Rule created by other means:\n\n If the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies\n a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned.\n Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n A Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Directive\n must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new\n Title.\n\n Titles for old Rules with no Titles:\n\n If a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when\n this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for\n that Rule.\n\n'),(496592,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1740, 15 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg\n not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the\n Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of\n the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the\n Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once\n assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and\n other Rules.\n\n For a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:\n\n If the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body\n of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. Otherwise the\n Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n For a new Rule created by other means:\n\n If the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies\n a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned.\n Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n A Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Directive\n must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new\n Title.\n\n Titles for old Rules with no Titles:\n\n If a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when\n this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for\n that Rule.\n\n'),(496591,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1673, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg\n not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the\n Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of\n the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the\n Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once\n assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and\n other Rules.\n\n For a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:\n\n If the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body\n of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. Otherwise the\n Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n For a new Rule created by other means:\n\n If the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies\n a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned.\n Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n A Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Adoption\n Index of a Proposal containing such a Directive must be at least\n 2. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the\n Rule and the new Title.\n\n Titles for old Rules with no Titles:\n\n If a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when\n this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for\n that Rule.\n\n'),(496590,'zefram',NULL,1485,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1668, 18 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text containg\n not more than 60 characters. The Title must be listed by the\n Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, they are not part of\n the Rule itself and have no effect on the application of the\n Rule, being merely a convenience for the Players. Titles, once\n assigned, may not be altered except as specified in this and\n other Rules.\n\n For a new Rule created as a result of a Rule Change Proposal:\n\n If the Rule Change Proposal specifies the Title within the body\n of the Proposal, that Title is assigned. If not, then the Title\n of the Proposal is assigned if the Proposal contained only one\n Rule Change; otherwise the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n For a new Rule created by other means:\n\n If the procedure which caused the Rule to be created specifies\n a way to determine the Title, then that Title is assigned.\n Otherwise, the Rulekeepor chooses a Title.\n\n To change the Title of an existing Rule:\n\n A Rule\'s Title may be changed by a Directive. The Adoption\n Index of a Proposal containing such a Directive must be at least\n 2. The Directive must unambiguously state the number of the\n Rule and the new Title.\n\n Titles for old Rules with no Titles:\n\n If a Rule has no Title, because it was created at a time when\n this Rule did not apply, the Rulekeepor shall choose a Title for\n that Rule.\n\n'),(496576,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3799 (Blob), 29 October 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some\n collection of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication\n that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection\n of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing\n Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is\n said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that\n text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear\n indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a\n prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must\n specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a\n duplicate of an existing Proposal.\n\n Further, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed\n Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.\n\n'),(496577,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), 31 October 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created whenever an entity with a Legislative\n Status of Legislator delivers some collection of text to the\n Public Forum with the clear indication that the text is intended\n to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a Proposal\n and the entity delivering that text becomes the Proposer of that\n Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or submitting a\n Proposal.\n\n The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a\n new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit\n indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.\n\n The publishing of the Proposal Queue never creates new\n Proposals.\n\n'),(496578,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion), 30 March 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute sends a\n body of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that\n it is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text\n becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes\n the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as\n Proposing or submitting a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a\n new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit\n indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.\n\n The publishing of the Proposal Queue never creates new\n Proposals.\n\n All Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more\n than 5 Blots.\n\n'),(496584,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1483 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496585,'zefram',NULL,1484,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1484 by Proposal 1624, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At no time may the a Player hold the Office of Clerk of the\n Courts while simultaneously holding either the Office of\n Promotor or the Office of Assessor. Any Move which would cause\n this to occur does not take place, and the Office (or Offices)\n which that Player whould have assumed instead becomes Vacant and\n shall then be filled according to the appropriate Rules.\n\n This Rule shall not be construed so as to prevent the Speaker\n from fulfilling the duties of any of these Offices in the event\n of a vacancy. However, the Speaker is highly encouraged to\n delegate eir duties for one or more of these Offices to another\n Players, should such a conflict arise as a result of Vacancies.\n\n'),(496579,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), 15 August 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute sends a\n body of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that\n it is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text\n becomes a Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes\n the Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as\n Proposing or submitting a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a\n new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit\n indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.\n\n The publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new\n Proposals.\n\n All Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more\n than 5 Blots.\n\n'),(496580,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute\n publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is\n intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a\n Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the\n Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or\n submitting a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a\n new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit\n indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.\n\n The publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new\n Proposals.\n\n All Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more\n than 5 Blots.\n\n'),(496581,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4658 (root), 29 March 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute\n publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is\n intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a\n Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the\n Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or\n submitting a Proposal.\n\n The publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new\n Proposals.\n\n All Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more\n than 5 Blots.\n\n'),(496582,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A legislator submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as\n possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n While a proposal is in the Proposal Pool, its proposer may\n modify its adoption index by announcement, specifying the\n proposal and its new adoption index. The default adoption index\n of a proposal is one.\n\n All players are legislators.\n\n'),(496583,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4829 (Maud), 30 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A legislator submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as\n possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may\n modify its adoption index by announcement. The default adoption\n index of a proposal is one.\n\n All players are legislators.\n\n'),(496575,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), 19 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some\n collection of text to the Promotor with the clear indication\n that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection\n of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing\n Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is\n said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that\n text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear\n indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a\n prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must\n specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a\n duplicate of an existing Proposal.\n\n Further, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed\n Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.\n\n'),(496574,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some\n collection of text to the Promotor with the clear indication\n that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection\n of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing\n Entity which delivered it its Proposer. The message in which\n the Proposal is delivered may specify whether the Proposal is\n Disinterested. A collection of text is said to be Proposed when\n it becomes a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that\n text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear\n indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a\n prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must\n specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a\n duplicate of an existing Proposal.\n\n Further, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed\n Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.\n\n'),(496571,'zefram',NULL,1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n'),(496572,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1483 by Proposal 1619, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any collection of text delivered by a Player to the Promoter and\n designated by the submitting Player as a Proposal is a Proposal.\n\n The effect of the adoption of a Proposal shall be limited to the\n application of those legally defined Rule Changes and Directives\n which are contained within the Proposal and which can be clearly\n identified as such.\n\n'),(496573,'zefram',NULL,1483,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2522, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some\n collection of text to the Promotor with the clear indication\n that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection\n of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing\n Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is\n said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of the text of an existing Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previously does not cause that\n text to become another Proposal, unless there is a clear\n indication that that text is intended to become a duplicate of a\n prior Proposal. In this case, the Proposing Entity must\n specifically acknowledge that the intended new Proposal is a\n duplicate of an existing Proposal.\n\n Further, the Promotor\'s distribution of previously undistributed\n Proposals never causes the Proposing of new Proposals.\n\n'),(496565,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4402 (Steve), 23 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to\n that entity for those Properties, and the named Player\n shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the\n debt. The Player is relieved of this obligation if the debt\n is satisfied before the public notice is posted.\n\n (b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so,\n then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those\n Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one\n or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the\n Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt. The\n Player is relieved of this obligation if the bill is paid\n before the public notice is posted.\n\n'),(496566,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1479 by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496567,'zefram',NULL,1480,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496568,'zefram',NULL,1481,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496569,'zefram',NULL,1482,'Enacted as MI=3 Rule 1482 by Proposal 1603, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In a conflict between Rules with different Mutability Indices,\n the Rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over\n the Rule with the lower Mutability Index.\n\n'),(496570,'zefram',NULL,1482,'Amended(1) Cosmetically by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n'),(496564,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4364 (Steve), 16 August 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to\n that entity for those Properties, and the named Player\n shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so,\n then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those\n Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one\n or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the\n Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\n'),(496563,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4353 (Steve), 7 August 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to\n that entity for those Properties, and the named Player\n shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so,\n then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those\n Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one\n or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the\n Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\n'),(496562,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to that\n entity for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\n Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one or\n more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the Bank for\n those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as\n possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\n'),(496561,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to pay out some quantity of\n Currency to some entity, that Player shall execute a Payment\n Order from the Bank to that entity for the amount specified.\n\n Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to bill an entity for some\n quantity of Currency, that Player shall execute a Payment Order\n from that entity to the Bank for the amount specified.\n\n'),(496560,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2476, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to lose some quantity of\n Currency without specifying where this Currency shall be\n transferred to, that quantity shall be transferred from that\n Player\'s Treasury to the Bank.\n\n Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to receive some quantity of\n Currency but does not specify where the Currency shall be\n transferred from, that quantity shall be transferred from the\n Bank to that Player\'s Treasury.\n\n The payment of all Salaries shall be by transfer from the Bank\n to that of the Player receiving the Salary.\n\n'),(496558,'zefram',NULL,1478,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1478 by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496559,'zefram',NULL,1479,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1479 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to lose a number of Points\n without specifying where these Points shall be transferred to,\n the Player shall be required to transfer that number of Points\n from eir own Treasury to the Bank.\n\n Whenever a Rule calls for a Player to receive a number of\n Points, but does not specify where the Points shall be received\n from, that number of Points shall be transferred from the Bank\n to that Player\'s Treasury.\n\n The payment of all Salaries shall be by transfer of Points from\n the Bank to that of the Player receiving the Salary.\n\n All of these transfers are involuntary in nature.\n\n'),(496557,'zefram',NULL,1478,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) An Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the\n Rules to act on behalf of that entity, who is called the\n Executee. There may be more than one such Player. An\n Executor of an Executee may perform on behalf of the\n Executee all such actions as the Rules permit the Executee\n to perform.\n\n (b) A Limited Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered\n by the Rules to perform on behalf of that entity a subset of\n the actions which the Rules permit the entity to perform. A\n Limited Executor is permitted to perform on behalf of an\n Executee only such actions as are explicitly permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n (c) A Player is always eir own Executor. Other entities have\n Executors (or Limited Executors) only as and when the Rules\n provide.\n\n (d) A Player acting on behalf of an entity other than emself\n must clearly indicate on whose behalf e is acting. A Player\n who does not clearly indicate that e is acting on behalf of\n some entity other than emself is presumed to be acting on\n eir own behalf.\n\n (e) Only persons may perform actions. Non-persons perform\n actions only via the agency of persons, as specified by the\n Rules.\n\n'),(496556,'zefram',NULL,1478,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), 2 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the\n Rules to act on behalf of that entity, as if e were that entity.\n\n Except when the Rules stipulate otherwise, a Player is eir own\n Executor. Any other entity has an Executor only when the Rules\n specify either a Player or a means to designate a Player to be\n the Executor of that entity.\n\n Whenever a Player is acting on behalf of some entity of which e\n is the Executor other than emself, e must make it clear that e\n is doing so. If such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e\n is acting as the Executor of some other entity, it shall be\n presumed that e is acting on eir own behalf.\n\n Only a person or an entity with a Player Executor may perform\n actions.\n\n'),(496555,'zefram',NULL,1478,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 3516 (General Chaos), 16 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the\n Rules to act on behalf of that entity, as if e was that entity.\n\n Except when the Rules stipulate otherwise, a Player is eir own\n Executor. Any other entity has an Executor only when the Rules\n specify either a Player or a means to designate a Player to be\n the Executor of that entity.\n\n Whenever a Player is acting on behalf of some entity of which e\n is the Executor other than emself, e must make it clear that e\n is doing so. If such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e\n is acting as the Executor of some other entity, it shall be\n presumed that e is acting on eir own behalf.\n\n A Nomic Entity (other than a person who is not a Player) which\n has no Executor, or whose Executor is not a Player, may not\n perform any action except when required to do so by the Rules.\n\n'),(496554,'zefram',NULL,1478,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2514, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may, for any given non-Player Nomic Entity, specify a\n Player, or the means to designate a Player, who shall act as the\n Executor of that Entity. The Executor of a non-Player Nomic\n Entity shall have the legal authority to act on behalf of that\n Entity, as if e were that Entity. The Rules may also specify\n constraints on how the Executor of an Entity may act.\n\n If a non-Player Nomic Entity has no Executor, it may not act\n except as specifically required of it by the Rules.\n\n The Executor of a Group is that Group\'s Vizier.\n\n For the sake of completeness, a Player is eir own Executor.\n\n Whenever a Player is acting on behalf of some Entity of which e\n is the Executor, e must make it clear that e is doing so. If\n such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e is acting as the\n Executor of some other Entity, it shall be presumed that e is\n acting on eir own behalf.\n\n'),(496553,'zefram',NULL,1478,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1478 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rules may, for any given non-Player Nomic Entity, specify a\n Player, or the means to designate a Player, who shall act as the\n Executor of that Entity. The Executor of a non-Player Nomic\n Entity shall have the legal authority to act on behalf of that\n Entity, as if e were that Entity. The Rules may also specify\n constraints on how the Executor of an Entity may act.\n\n If a non-Player Nomic Entity has no Executor, it may not act\n except as specifically required of it by the Rules.\n\n The Executor of a Group is that Group\'s Vizier.\n\n For the sake of completeness, a Player is eir own Executor.\n\n'),(496552,'zefram',NULL,1477,'Amended(3)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Extra Votes are a Currency. The MUQ of Extra Votes is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Extra Votes is the Assessor. The Mintor of\n Extra Votes is the Mint.\n\n The Assessor\'s Report includes the number of Extra Votes held in\n each Treasury, and the changes thereof since the last posting of\n the Assessor\'s Report.\n\n'),(496551,'zefram',NULL,1477,'Amended(2)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Extra Votes are a Currency. The MUQ of Extra Votes is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Extra Votes is the Assessor. The Mintor of\n Extra Votes is the Mint.\n\n At least once each Nomic week, the Assessor shall post a Report\n to the Public Forum, including a list of all transfers of Extra\n Votes since the previous such Report, and the current ownership\n of all Extra Votes.\n\n'),(496550,'zefram',NULL,1477,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2571, 12 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Extra Votes are a Currency. The MUQ of Extra Votes is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Extra Votes is the Assessor. The Mintor of\n Extra Votes is the Mint.\n\n'),(496549,'zefram',NULL,1477,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1477 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Extra Votes are a Currency. The MUQ of Extra Votes is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Extra Votes is the Assessor, or, in eir\n absence, the Speaker. The Mintor of Extra Votes is the Mint.\n\n'),(496548,'zefram',NULL,1476,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1709, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any transfer of Points, voluntary or involuntary, from any\n Treasury other than the Bank to the Treasury of any Player shall\n be limited to the largest amount such that the Treasury of the\n Player receiving the transfer will not contain more than 90% of\n the Points which that Player would need in order to win. Any\n portion of a transfer which would violate this requirement is\n cancelled and does not take place.\n\n Transfers of Points from the Bank are never restricted in this\n manner.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit\n transfers or portions of transfers forbidden by this Rule to\n take place.\n\n'),(496547,'zefram',NULL,1476,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1476 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any transfer of Points, voluntary or involuntary, from any\n Treasury other than the Bank to the Treasury of any Player shall\n be limited to the largest amount such that the Treasury of the\n Player receiving the transfer will not contain more than 90% of\n the Points which that Player would need in order to win. Any\n portion of a transfer which would violate this requirement is\n cancelled and does not take place.\n\n Transfers of Points from the Bank are never restricted in this\n manner.\n\n'),(496546,'zefram',NULL,1475,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2571, 12 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Points are a Currency. The MUQ of Points is 0.1. The\n Recordkeepor for Points is the Scorekeepor. The Mintor for\n Points is the Mint.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall post at least once every Nomic Week an\n Official Report to the Public Forum detailing the number of\n Points held in every Treasury, and the changes thereof since at\n least the last such report.\n\n All transfers involving Points shall be reported to the Public\n Forum. This takes precedence over any Rule which might not\n require, or which might prohibit, the reporting of a transfer to\n the Public Forum.\n\n'),(496545,'zefram',NULL,1475,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1475 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Points are a Currency. The MUQ of Points is 0.1. The\n Recordkeepor for Points is the Scorekeepor, or, in eir absence,\n the Speaker. The Mintor for Points is the Mint.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall post at least once every Nomic Week an\n Official Report to the Public Forum detailing the number of\n Points held in every Treasury, and the changes thereof since at\n least the last such report.\n\n All transfers involving Points shall be reported to the Public\n Forum. This takes precedence over any Rule which might not\n require, or which might prohibit, the reporting of a transfer to\n the Public Forum.\n\n'),(496544,'zefram',NULL,1474,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization is permitted to be the Mintor of a Currency\n _only_ if that Organization possesses a Treasury, _and_ if the\n Rules defining that Organization\'s Class specifically permit it\n to become the Mintor of a Currency.\n\n Each Rule that permits an Organization of a specific Class to be\n a Mintor must define a unique generic name for every type of\n Currency associated with that Class of Organization.\n\n The name of any Currency associated with a specific Organization\n shall be the Name of the Organization followed by the unique\n generic name defined by the Class of that Organization.\n\n The Recordkeepor of any Organization\'s Currency is the Executor\n of the associated Organization. The MUQ of all such Currencies\n is 1.\n\n'),(496542,'zefram',NULL,1473,'Amended(2)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Marks are a Currency. The MUQ of Marks is 0.01. The\n Recordkeepor for Marks is the Banker. The Mintor for Marks is\n the Mint.\n\n The Banker\'s Report includes the number of Marks held in each\n Treasury, and the changes thereof since the last posting of the\n Banker\'s Report.\n\n'),(496543,'zefram',NULL,1474,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1474 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Group shall have an associated Currency, the name of which\n shall be formed by appending the word \"Coins\" to the name of the\n Group. The MUQ of all Group Coins is 1. The Recordkeepor for\n each variety of Group Coin is the Vizier of the associated\n Group. The Mintor for each variety of Group Coin is the\n associated Group.\n\n'),(496539,'zefram',NULL,1472,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1472 by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496540,'zefram',NULL,1473,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1473 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Marks are a Currency. The MUQ of Marks is 0.01. The\n Recordkeepor for Marks is the Banker, or, in eir absence, the\n Speaker. The Mintor for Marks is the Mint.\n\n The Banker shall post at least once every Nomic Week an Official\n Report to the Public Forum detailing the number of Marks held in\n every Treasury, and the changes thereof since at least the last\n such report.\n\n'),(496541,'zefram',NULL,1473,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2571, 12 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Marks are a Currency. The MUQ of Marks is 0.01. The\n Recordkeepor for Marks is the Banker. The Mintor for Marks is\n the Mint.\n\n The Banker shall post at least once every Nomic Week an Official\n Report to the Public Forum detailing the number of Marks held in\n every Treasury, and the changes thereof since at least the last\n such report.\n\n'),(496538,'zefram',NULL,1472,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2493, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Units of Currency are transferrable between Treasuries under the\n following conditions:\n\n a) The transfer shall be from exactly one Treasury to exactly\n one other Treasury.\n b) The transfer must be of a positive amount of exactly one\n Currency, and that amount must be an exact integral multiple\n of that Currency\'s MUQ.\n c) Some Rule must authorize the transfer, either by requiring it\n directly or by granting authority to require the transfer to\n some other entity.\n d) Some Rule must specify a Player whose duty it is to report\n the occurence of the transfer to the Recordkeepor of the\n Currency involved.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit or\n require a transfer prohibited by this Rule, and defers to any\n Rule which prohibits a transfer permitted by this Rule.\n\n'),(496537,'zefram',NULL,1472,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1702, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n It shall be legal to transfer Currencies between Treasuries,\n provided this is done in accordance with the Rules. Every\n transfer shall involve a positive amount of exactly one\n Currency, which shall be transferred from exactly one Treasury\n into exactly one other Treasury. Every transfer has an\n initiator, which is the Entity which causes the transfer to take\n place.\n\n A transfer which is explicitly and directly required to take\n place by a Rule is initiated by that Rule, and is called a Class\n I Transfer.\n\n A transfer which is required to take place by an Entity (other\n than the Rules) to which the Rules have granted the power to\n require Currency Transfers to take place is initiated by that\n Entity (_not_ the Rule which grants that power to that Entity),\n and is called a Class II Transfer.\n\n A transfer which is not required to take place, and which is\n instead the consequence of a Player\'s action, is initiated by\n that Player, and is a called a Class III Transfer.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, a Rule, or an Entity other than\n the Rules to which the Rules have granted the power to require\n Players to perform actions, which requires a Player to initiate\n a transfer is _not_ requiring the transfer. Such a transfer is\n a Class III transfer initiated by that Player. This Rule takes\n precedence over any Rule which would require a Player to\n initiate a transfer which is prohibited by this Rule.\n\n A Class I transfer is not permitted if there is no Rule which\n specifies a Player who is to detect and report the transfer.\n\n A Class II transfer is not permitted if there is no Rule, or\n Entity other than the Rules to which the Rules have granted the\n power to require Players to perform actions, which specifies a\n Player who is to detect and report the transfer.\n\n A Class II or Class III Transfer is not permitted if the\n Treasury from which the Currency is being transferred will\n possess a negative quantity of that Currency after the transfer\n has been completed.\n\n A Class III Transfer is not permitted unless the transfer is\n initiated by the Executor of the Owner of the Treasury from\n which the Currency is being transferred.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would permit a\n transfer prohibited by this Rule.\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified of a transfer\n involving that Currency within seven days, unless another Rule\n specifies a different time limit for reporting a certain type of\n transfer. For a Class I or Class II transfer, the notification\n shall be made by the Player required to detect and report it.\n For a Class III transfer, the notification shall be made by the\n Player who initiated it.\n\n Class I and Class II transfers take place at the time they are\n required to take place. Class III transfers take place at the\n time they are reported.\n\n'),(496536,'zefram',NULL,1472,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1649, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The owner of a given Treasury is permitted to, at any time,\n transfer any or all of the units of Currency within that\n Treasury to any other Treasury, so long as this transfer is\n permitted by the Rules. Such a transfer is known as a\n \"voluntary\" transfer.\n\n Transfers which are indirectly required by the Rules--that is,\n required only because they are required by a non-Rule entity\n which is required by the Rules to be obeyed (including, but not\n necessarily limited to Group Ordinances and Contest\n Regulations)--are also \"voluntary\" transfers.\n\n Voluntary transfers are restricted to positive quantities, and\n in no case may more of a given Currency be transferred from a\n Treasury than that Treasury possessed prior to the transfer.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which attempts to\n transfer more than that amount in a voluntary transfer.\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified as soon as\n possible by the owner of the Treasury from which a\n voluntary transfer is made. If a voluntary transfer is not\n reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, it is cancelled\n and does not take place.\n\n Transfers which are not voluntary transfers (\"involuntary\"\n transfers) shall only be made as directly required by the\n Rules. Such transfers must be reported to the Recordkeepors of\n the Currencies involved as soon as possible thereafter, by a\n Player specified by the Rules. Involuntary transfers are\n permitted to be of any amount (limited only by MUQ rounding),\n and are permitted to involve amounts greater than the amount in\n the Treasury from which the transfer originates.\n\n If an involuntary transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor\n within seven days, or there is no Rule which requires a Player\n to report the involuntary transfer, the transfer is cancelled\n and does not take place.\n\n All transfers take effect no sooner than the time the\n Recordkeepor of the Currency is informed of the transfer.\n\n'),(496535,'zefram',NULL,1472,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1472 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The owner of a given Treasury may, at any time, transfer\n any or all of the units of Currency within that Treasury to any\n other Treasury, so long as this transfer is permitted by the\n Rules. Such a transfer is known as a \"voluntary\" transfer.\n Voluntary transfers are restricted to positive quantities, and\n in no case may more of a given Currency be transferred from a\n Treasury than that Treasury possessed prior to the transfer.\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency must be notified as soon as\n possible by the owner of the Treasury from which a\n voluntary transfer is made. If a voluntary transfer is not\n reported to the Recordkeepor within seven days, it is cancelled\n and does not take place.\n\n Transfers which are not voluntary transfers (\"involuntary\"\n transfers) may only be made as specifically required by the\n Rules. Such transfers must be reported to the Recordkeepors of\n the Currencies involved as soon as possible thereafter, by a\n Player specified by the Rules. Involuntary transfers may be of\n any amount (limited only by MUQ rounding), and may involve\n amounts greater than the amount in the Treasury from which the\n transfer originates.\n\n If an involuntary transfer is not reported to the Recordkeepor\n within seven days, or there is no Rule which requires a Player\n to report the involuntary transfer, the transfer is cancelled\n and does not take place.\n\n All transfers take effect no sooner than the time the\n Recordkeepor of the Currency is informed of the transfer.\n\n'),(496534,'zefram',NULL,1471,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1471 by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496533,'zefram',NULL,1471,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n New units of a Currency are created when the Mintor of that\n Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that Currency a notice\n that e is creating new units of that Currency, specifying the\n number of units that e is creating. The newly created units are\n added to the Mintor\'s possessions.\n\n Units of Currency are destroyed when any entity which possesses\n units of that Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that\n Currency a notice that e is destroying units of that Currency,\n specifying the number of units that e is destroying. An entity\n cannot destroy more units of a Currency than e possesses,\n however. The units destroyed are removed from the possession of\n the entity performing the destruction.\n\n'),(496532,'zefram',NULL,1471,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2619, 19 June 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Mintor of a Currency may, at any time, create new units of\n that Currency, so long as this creation is permitted by the\n Rules. These newly-created units of Currency are placed in the\n Treasury of the Mintor. Units of Currency may not otherwise be\n created except as specifically authorized by the Rules.\n\n The Mintor of a Currency may, at any time, destroy those units\n of that Currency which it currently possesses in its Treasury,\n so long as this destruction is permitted by the Rules. Units of\n Currency may not be otherwise destroyed except as specifically\n authorized by the Rules.\n\n If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, or ceases to have\n the authority to be a Mintor, then all units of that Currency\n are immediately destroyed, and that Currency ceases to exist.\n\n The Mintor of the Currency shall notify the Recordkeepor of the\n Currency as soon as possible after it creates or destroys Units\n of Currency.\n\n A Mintor must have a Treasury.\n\n'),(496531,'zefram',NULL,1471,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1471 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Mintor of a Currency may, at any time, create new units of\n that Currency, so long as this creation is permitted by the\n Rules. These newly-created units of Currency are placed in the\n Treasury of the Mintor. Units of Currency may not otherwise be\n created except as specifically authorized by the Rules.\n\n The Mintor of a Currency may, at any time, destroy those units\n of that Currency which it currently possesses in its Treasury,\n so long as this destruction is permitted by the Rules. Units of\n Currency may not be otherwise destroyed except as specifically\n authorized by the Rules.\n\n If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, or ceases to have\n the authority to be a Mintor, then all units of that Currency\n are immediately destroyed, and Currency ceases to exist.\n\n The Mintor of the Currency shall notify the Recordkeepor of the\n Currency as soon as possible after it creates or destroys Units\n of Currency.\n\n A Mintor must have a Treasury.\n\n'),(496530,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1470 by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496528,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank\n Currency. The Bank is permitted to transfer Property in its\n possession to other entities.\n\n (b) The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank. Each Recordkeepor\n of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of the Bank, and\n is empowered to make transfers of that Currency from the\n Bank.\n\n (c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime\n Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in\n that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the\n Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is\n required to perform.\n\n (d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any\n other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole\n or in part:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\n'),(496529,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency.\n The Bank may transfer Property in its possession to other\n entities only to satisfy its debts.\n\n (b) The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank. Each\n Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of\n the Bank, and is empowered to make transfers of that\n Currency from the Bank.\n\n (c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime\n Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in\n that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the\n Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is\n required to perform.\n\n (d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any\n other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole\n or in part:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\n'),(496527,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency.\n\n (b) The Executor of the Bank is the Treasuror. Each Recordkeepor\n of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of the Bank.\n\n (c) The Executor of the Bank, and each Limited Executor, is\n authorized to transfer Property from the Bank as and when\n the Rules explicitly require or permit it. Transfers of\n Property from the Bank which are made without being\n explicitly required or permitted by the Rules are\n unauthorized.\n\n (d) Whenever the Bank incurs a debt to any other entity, the\n Bank shall, as soon as possible and by its Executor or by\n one of its Limited Executors, either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Treasuror has sole authority to forgive debts owed to\n the Bank, in whole or in part. This power may only be\n exercised:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\n'),(496524,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a Nomic Entity called the Bank. The Bank has\n Mint Authority.\n\n'),(496525,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), 15 November 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a set of Entities known collectively as the\n Bank. This set consists of one Entity for each Bank Currency\n defined by the rules, which is the Mintor of that Currency.\n Each of the Entities in the Bank has Mint Authority.\n\n A Transfer Order (or Payment Order) of Bank Currency to (or\n from) the Bank shall be interpreted unambiguously to be a\n Transfer (Payment) Order to (from) the Mintor of that\n Currency. Transfer Orders or Payment orders to or from the\n Bank in non-Bank Currencies are invalid.\n\n Each of these Entities may only own Currency of its associated\n type. A Transfer order or Payment Order involving the Mintor\n of a Bank Currency, which is not in that Currency is invalid.\n\n'),(496526,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an entity known as the Bank. The Executor of\n the Bank shall be the Treasuror. Each Recordkeepor of each Bank\n Currency shall be a Limited Executor of the Bank, with the\n authority to execute transfers of units of that Currency, from\n and on behalf of the Bank. The Bank has Mint Authority. The\n Bank is the Mintor of every Bank Currency.\n\n The Bank shall not transfer Currencies except when specifically\n authorized to do so by the Rules.\n\n Whenever the Bank incurs a debt to any other entity, the Bank\n shall, as soon as possible and by its Executor or by one of its\n Limited Executors, either satisfy that debt by transferring\n appropriate Properties to the creditor, or dispute the debt by\n whatever means are appropriate in the situation.\n\n The authority to compromise or forgive a debt of the Bank rests\n only in the Treasuror. This power may only be exercised only:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\n'),(496519,'zefram',NULL,1469,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2496, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Treasuries shall only be created or destroyed when required by\n the Rules.\n\n When a Treasury is created, it contains no units of any\n Currency.\n\n When a Treasury is destroyed, all units of Currency within it\n are transferred to the Treasuries of the Mintors of the\n respective Currencies, to the extent permitted by the Rules.\n Any untransferrable Currencies are instead destroyed.\n\n The Recordkeepors of each individual Currency are required to\n detect and report transfers of that Currency which occur as a\n result of this Rule.\n\n'),(496520,'zefram',NULL,1469,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Treasuries shall only be created or destroyed when required by\n the Rules.\n\n When a Treasury is created, it contains no units of any\n Currency.\n\n When a Treasury is destroyed, sufficient units of each Currency\n are transferred between that Treasury and the Treasuries of\n the Mintors of the respective Currencies, in either direction,\n so as to make the Treasury contain zero of each Currency,\n to the extent permitted by the Rules. Any untransferable\n Currencies in the Treasury are instead destroyed.\n\n The Recordkeepors of each individual Currency are required to\n detect and report transfers of that Currency which occur as a\n result of this Rule.\n\n'),(496521,'zefram',NULL,1469,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1469 by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496522,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1470 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a Nomic Entity called the Mint. The Mint\n shall have a Treasury known as the Bank.\n\n The Mint may never transfer Currencies from its Treasury, or\n create or destroy any of the Currencies of which it is the\n Mintor, except as specifically authorized to do so in the Rules.\n The Mint shall not have an Executor.\n\n'),(496523,'zefram',NULL,1470,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2470, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist a Nomic Entity called the Mint. The Mint\n shall have a Treasury known as the Bank.\n\n The Mint may never transfer Currencies from its Treasury, or\n create or destroy any of the Currencies of which it is the\n Mintor, except as specifically authorized to do so in the Rules.\n The Mint shall not have an Executor.\n\n The Mint has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(496516,'zefram',NULL,1468,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1468 by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496517,'zefram',NULL,1469,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1469 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever an Entity which is permitted to possess a Treasury is\n created, or an existing Entity is granted the permission to\n possess a Treasury, a Treasury is created for that Entity. Such\n a new Treasury shall initially contain no Currencies, unless\n otherwise specified in the Rules.\n\n Whenever an Entity which possesses a Treasury ceases to exist or\n ceases to be permitted to possess a Treasury, all Currencies\n within are immediately transferred to the Treasuries of the\n Mintors of the respective Currencies.\n\n'),(496518,'zefram',NULL,1469,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever an Entity which is permitted to possess a Treasury is\n created, or an existing Entity is granted the permission to\n possess a Treasury, a Treasury is created for that Entity. Such\n a new Treasury shall initially contain no Currencies, unless\n otherwise specified in the Rules.\n\n Whenever an Entity which possesses a Treasury ceases to exist or\n ceases to be permitted to possess a Treasury, all Currencies\n within are immediately transferred to the Treasuries of the\n Mintors of the respective Currencies, and the Treasury itself\n is destroyed.\n\n The Banker shall report the creation or destruction of a\n Treasury to the Public Forum as soon as possible after such\n creation or destruction takes place, unless this creation or\n destruction is the immediate and direct consequence of an action\n which is also required to be reported in the Public Forum, in\n which case that notification is sufficient, and no further\n notification is required of the Banker.\n\n A legal notification of the destruction of a Treasury is also,\n by implication, a report of the transfer of all Currencies\n within that Treasury to their Mintors as required by this Rule.\n\n'),(496513,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1467 by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496514,'zefram',NULL,1468,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1468 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Treasury is a repository for holding Currencies. Currencies\n may exist only within a Treasury. A Treasury may contain a\n positive, negative, or zero quantity of a given Currency, unless\n otherwise prohibited by the Rules. Currencies may be\n transferred between Treasuries only as specified in the Rules.\n\n Only those Nomic Entities which are authorized by the Rules to\n possess Treasuries may possess Treasuries. No Treasury may be\n possessed by more than one Nomic Entity. The possession of\n Treasuries may never be changed, once created.\n\n Each Player and each Group has a Treasury of its own.\n\n Whenever an Entity possesses only one Treasury, it shall be a\n permissible and unambiguous abbreviation to state that the\n Entity possesses the Currencies within its Treasury.\n\n'),(496515,'zefram',NULL,1468,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2496, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Treasury is a repository for holding Currencies. A Treasury\n is permitted to contain any quantity of Currencies in any\n combination, unless otherwise restricted by some other Rule.\n\n Every unit of every Currency always resides in some Treasury.\n Units of Currency shall only be placed into, removed from, or\n transferred between, Treasuries as permitted by the Rules.\n\n The possession of Treasuries is limited to those entities\n authorized by the Rules to possess them. No entity shall\n possess more than one Treasury; no Treasury shall be possessed\n by more than one entity. Treasuries shall not be transferred.\n\n It shall always be a permissible and unambiguous abbreviation to\n state that an entity in possession of a Treasury possesses the\n Currencies within that Treasury.\n\n'),(496508,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Infected and Amended(3) Substantially by Rule 1454, 13 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are certain entities which are Currencies. An entity is a\n Currency if and only if it has been made such by the Rules, and\n if and only if it complies with all the requirements in the\n Rules pertaining to Currencies.\n\n Neither Currencies nor units of Currency shall be created or\n destroyed except as specified by the Rules.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(496509,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Amended(4) Substantially by Rule 1467, 27 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are certain entities which are Currencies. An entity is a\n Currency if and only if it has been made such by the Rules, and\n if and only if it complies with all the requirements in the\n Rules pertaining to Currencies.\n\n Neither Currencies nor units of Currency shall be created or\n destroyed except as specified by the Rules.\n\n'),(496510,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3894 (harvel), 16 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Currency is a class of Nomic Entities. Each Currency shall\n have a Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ). All transfers and\n holdings of each Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest\n multiple of its MUQ.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the MUQ of each Currency is 1.\n\n'),(496511,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), 2 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There may exist Currencies, which are classes of entities.\n Each Currency shall have a Minimum Unit Quantity, abbreviated\n MUQ, which shall be 1 unless otherwise specified. All\n transfers and holdings of each Currency shall be rounded off to\n the nearest multiple of its MUQ.\n\n'),(496512,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Currency is a category of entities established by the Rules.\n Each instance of a Currency is a Property. Instances of a given\n Currency are fungible. The size of a single instance, or\n \"unit\", of a given Currency is its Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ).\n Individual units of a Currency cannot be divided; therefore,\n the final result of all computations involving numbers of units\n of Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest integral\n multiple of its MUQ.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the MUQ of a Currency is one (1).\n\n Since units of Currency are fungible, it is not necessary for\n the Recordkeepor of a Currency to track the individual\n ownership of each unit; rather, it is sufficient to maintain a\n record of the total number of units possessed by each entity\n which possesses any number of units of that Currency.\n\n'),(496506,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1685, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Currency is a type of Nomic Entity. Only those Nomic Entities\n which are specifically defined by the Rules as being Currencies\n are Currencies.\n\n A Currency must have a Name (which must not be the name of any\n other Currency), a minimum unit quantity, a Recordkeepor, and a\n Mintor. The Mintor of a Currency is the Mint if it is not\n otherwise defined.\n\n The minimum unit quantity (MUQ) of a Currency is the smallest\n amount of that Currency which may be transferred. All\n transfers, holdings, and calculations involving a given Currency\n shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of its MUQ. The\n MUQ of a given Currency is 1, unless another Rule specifies a\n different MUQ for that Currency.\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency is the Player who is required to\n maintain a record of the amount of that Currency held in the\n various Treasuries which exist. If a Currency ceases to have a\n valid Recordkeepor, the Banker (or, in eir absence, the Speaker)\n shall fulfill that responsibility until a new Recordkeepor is\n selected according to the appropriate procedures. If no\n procedure exists to select a new recordkeepor, all units of the\n Currency are instead destroyed, and the Currency ceases to\n exist.\n\n The Mintor of a Currency is the Nomic Entity which is authorized\n to create and destroy units of that Currency. If the Mintor of\n a Currency ceases to exist, all units of the Currency are\n immediately destroyed, and the Currency also ceases to exist.\n\n The Banker shall maintain a record of all existing Currencies\n and their MUQs, Recordkeepors, and Mintors.\n\n'),(496507,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2470, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There are certain entities which are Currencies. An entity is a\n Currency if and only if it has been made such by the Rules, and\n if and only if it complies with all the requirements in the\n Rules pertaining to Currencies.\n\n Neither Currencies nor units of Currency shall be created or\n destroyed except as specified by the Rules.\n\n'),(496504,'zefram',NULL,1466,'Amended(5)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive.\n If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency\n holdings contained in an Entity or Entities\' Treasury or\n Treasuries. They may have no other effects.\n\n'),(496505,'zefram',NULL,1467,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1467 by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Currency is a type of Nomic Entity. Only those Nomic Entities\n which are specifically defined by the Rules as being Currencies\n are Currencies.\n\n A Currency must have a Name (which must not be the name of any\n other Currency), a minimum unit quantity, a Recordkeepor, and a\n Mintor.\n\n The minimum unit quantity (MUQ) of a Currency is the smallest\n amount of that Currency which may be transferred. All\n transfers, holdings, and calculations involving a given Currency\n shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of its MUQ. The\n MUQ of a given Currency is 1, unless another Rule specifies a\n different MUQ for that Currency.\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency is the Player who is required to\n maintain a record of the amount of that Currency held in the\n various Treasuries which exist. If a Currency ceases to have a\n valid Recordkeepor, the Banker (or, in eir absence, the Speaker)\n shall fulfill that responsibility until a new Recordkeepor is\n selected according to the appropriate procedures. If no\n procedure exists to select a new recordkeepor, all units of the\n Currency are instead destroyed, and the Currency ceases to\n exist.\n\n The Mintor of a Currency is the Nomic Entity which is authorized\n to create and destroy units of that Currency. If the Mintor of\n a Currency ceases to exist, all units of the Currency are\n immediately destroyed, and the Currency also ceases to exist.\n\n The Banker shall maintain a record of all existing Currencies\n and their MUQs, Recordkeepors, and Mintors.\n\n'),(496500,'zefram',NULL,1466,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1637, 25 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive.\n A Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives has an\n Adoption Index of 2, or higher if something else in the Proposal\n requires a higher index. If adopted, they have the effect of\n specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or\n Entities\' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other\n effects.\n\n'),(496501,'zefram',NULL,1466,'Null-Amended(2) by Proposal 1640, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive.\n A Proposal containing one or more Currency Directives has an\n Adoption Index of 2, or higher if something else in the Proposal\n requires a higher index. If adopted, they have the effect of\n specifying the Currency holdings contained in an Entity or\n Entities\' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have no other\n effects.\n\n'),(496502,'zefram',NULL,1466,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1669, 18 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive.\n If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency\n holdings contained in an Entity or Entities\' Treasury or\n Treasuries. They may have no other effects.\n\n'),(496503,'zefram',NULL,1466,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2293, 29 December 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive.\n If adopted, they have the effect of specifying the Currency\n holdings contained in an Entity or Entities\' Treasury or\n Treasuries. They may have no other effects. The AI of a\n Proposal which contains such a Directive shall be at least 1.\n\n'),(496496,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(10) by Proposal 3673 (Steve), 30 January 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the start of the first Nomic Week after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, that Player shall\n receive a Champion\'s Reward. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. As soon as possible after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, the Registrar shall\n pay out ten Voting Tokens to that Player.\n\n Any Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has\n not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on\n any Proposal.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496497,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3725 (Steve), 21 April 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the start of the first Nomic Week after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, that Player shall\n receive a Champion\'s Reward. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. As soon as possible after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, the Registrar shall\n pay out four Voting Tokens to that Player.\n\n Any Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has\n not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on\n any Proposal.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496498,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1465 by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), 15 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496499,'zefram',NULL,1466,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1466 by Proposal 1596, 2 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a type of Directive, called a Currency Directive.\n These Directives have an Adoption Index of 2. If adopted, they\n have the effect of specifying the Currency holdings contained\n in an Entity or Entities\' Treasury or Treasuries. They may have\n no other effects.\n\n'),(496494,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the start of the first Nomic Week after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, that Player shall\n receive a Champion\'s Reward. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. At the onset of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward,\n the Assessor shall pay out ten VTs to that Player.\n\n Any Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has\n not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on\n any Proposal.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496495,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3566 (General Chaos), 24 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the start of the first Nomic Week after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, that Player shall\n receive a Champion\'s Reward. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. At the onset of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward,\n the Registrar shall pay out ten VTs to that Player.\n\n Any Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has\n not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on\n any Proposal.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496491,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Infected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, 4 June 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule\n shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a\n third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted\n to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full\n Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that\n that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player.\n\n In addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank\n to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule,\n at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward. This\n transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496492,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 2794 (Andre), 30 January 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the start of the first Nomic Week after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, that Player shall\n receive a Champion\'s Reward, and ten Extra Votes are transferred\n from the Bank to that Player. This transfer is detected and\n reported by the Assessor. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player.\n\n Any Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has\n not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on\n any Proposal.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496493,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin; disi.), 2 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n At the start of the first Nomic Week after the legal and correct\n announcement that a Player has won a Game, that Player shall\n receive a Champion\'s Reward, and ten VTs are transferred\n from the Bank to that Player. This transfer is detected and\n reported by the Assessor. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from that time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player.\n\n Any Player who has been awarded a Champion\'s Reward that has\n not yet been withdrawn, has the right to cast three votes on\n any Proposal.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496490,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule\n shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a\n third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted\n to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full\n Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that\n that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player.\n\n In addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank\n to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule,\n at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward. This\n transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor.\n\n The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Champion\'s Rewards\n which have been granted and have not yet been withdrawn,\n including to whom they have been granted, and their times of\n commencement and conclusion. This list is known as the Green\n Pages, and is part of the Registrar\'s Report.\n\n'),(496489,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2484, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule\n shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a\n third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted\n to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full\n Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that\n that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. Responsibility is given to the Registrar to\n accurately record in eir Report the times of commencement and\n conclusion of of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted\n and have not yet been withdrawn.\n\n In addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank\n to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule,\n at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward. This\n transfer is detected and reported by the Assessor.\n\n'),(496488,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1721, 6 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule\n shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a\n third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted\n to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full\n Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that\n that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. Responsibility is given to the Registrar to\n accurately record in eir Report the times of commencement and\n conclusion of of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted\n and have not yet been withdrawn.\n\n In addition, ten Extra Votes shall be transferred from the Bank\n to any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule,\n at the commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward.\n\n'),(496487,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1663, 18 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule\n shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a\n third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted\n to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full\n Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that\n that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. Responsibility is given to the Registrar to\n accurately record in eir Report the times of commencement and\n conclusion of of all Champion\'s Rewards which have been granted\n and have not yet been withdrawn.\n\n In addition, ten Extra Votes shall be created and given to any\n Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule, at the\n commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward.\n\n'),(496481,'zefram',NULL,1460,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496482,'zefram',NULL,1461,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496483,'zefram',NULL,1462,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496484,'zefram',NULL,1463,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496485,'zefram',NULL,1464,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496486,'zefram',NULL,1465,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1465 by Proposal 1594 (Steve), 2 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule\n shall be granted the Champion\'s Reward: the right to cast a\n third vote on Proposals. The Champion\'s Reward shall be granted\n to a winning Player beginning at the start of the first full\n Nomic Week after the the legal and correct announcement that\n that Player has won a game. The Champion\'s Reward shall last\n for four Nomic weeks from this time, and is then withdrawn from\n that Player. Responsibility is given to the Registrar to\n accurately record in eir Report the times of commencement and\n conclusion of Champion\'s Rewards.\n\n In addition, ten Extra Votes shall be created and given to any\n Player who wins a game after the creation of this Rule, at the\n commencement of that Player\'s Champion\'s Reward.\n\n'),(496480,'zefram',NULL,1459,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1789, 13 November 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization can only be Private if the Rules defining its\n Class permit (or require) it to be Private.\n\n If its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an\n Organization is not Private unless its Compact claims Privacy.\n\n Any Organization which is not a Private Organization is a\n Public Organization.\n\n The Compact of a Private Organization are privileged, and may\n only be divulged by Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction.\n (This defers to the Compact where it forbids such disclosure.)\n\n The following are the only legal exceptions:\n\n i) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to a Player\n within its Jurisdiction.\n ii) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to the current\n Notary.\n iii) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to a Judge or\n Justice judging a CFJ, where the Caller of the CFJ is a\n Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction, and the evidence\n provided by the Caller of the CFJ contains text purported\n to be part or all of the Compact.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require any\n Player to provide the Compact of a Private Organization upon\n request.\n\n'),(496479,'zefram',NULL,1459,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n An Organization can only be Private if the Rules defining its\n Class permit (or require) it to be Private.\n\n If its Class permits Privacy, but does not require it, an\n Organization is not Private unless its Compact claims Privacy.\n\n The Compact of a Private Organization are privileged, and may\n only be divulged by Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction.\n (This defers to the Compact where it forbids such disclosure.)\n\n The following are the only legal exceptions:\n\n i) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to a Player\n within its Jurisdiction.\n ii) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to the current\n Notary.\n iii) Disclosure of any part of the Compact to a Judge or\n Justice judging a CFJ, where the Caller of the CFJ is a\n Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction, and the evidence\n provided by the Caller of the CFJ contains text purported\n to be part or all of the Compact.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require any\n Player to provide the Compact of a Private Organization upon\n request.\n\n'),(496478,'zefram',NULL,1459,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1684, 29 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who is or has been Notary may not divulge any part of\n any Contract which was entered into or was in force during the\n time that e is or was Notary. However, the following\n disclosures are legal, as noted:\n\n * Disclosure of part or all of a Contract, to any party of that\n Contract;\n * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to the current\n Notary;\n * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to a Judge or\n Justice judging a CFJ, where the Caller of the CFJ is a\n party to the Contract, and the evidence provided by the\n Caller of the CFJ contains text purported to be part\n or all of the Contract.\n\n If a Judge or Justice requires disclosure of a Contract to em\n for the purpose of Judging a CFJ, the Notary is required to\n provide a copy of the Contract to the Judge or Justice as soon\n as possible after the Judge\'s or Justice\'s request. The Judge\n or Justice receiving the contract is then bound by the same\n strictures of nondisclosure as is the Notary, and is further\n prohibited from attaching a copy of it to eir Judgement as\n evidence.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require the\n Notary to provide such records upon request, and which would\n require a Judge to include a copy of a Contract as part of the\n evidence justifying eir Ruling.\n\n In addition, this Rule shall never be construed such that a\n Player may not disclose part of all of any Contract of which e\n is a party.\n\n'),(496476,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1458 by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496477,'zefram',NULL,1459,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1459 by Proposal 1575, 18 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Player who is or has been Notary may not divulge any part of\n any Contract which was entered into or was in force during the\n time that e is or was Notary. However, the following\n disclosures are legal, as noted:\n\n * Disclosure of part or all of a Contract, to any party of that\n Contract;\n * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to the current\n Notary;\n * Disclosure of part or all of any Contract, to a Judge or\n Justice who believes that knowledge of the contents of the\n Contract is necessary for em to Judge a CFJ.\n\n If a Judge or Justice requires disclosure of a Contract to em\n for the purpose of Judging a CFJ, the Notary is required to\n provide a copy of the Contract to the Judge or Justice as soon\n as possible after the Judge\'s or Justice\'s request. The Judge\n or Justice receiving the contract is then bound by the same\n strictures of nondisclosure as is the Notary, and is further\n prohibited from attaching a copy of it to eir Judgement as\n evidence.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would require the\n Notary to provide such records upon request, and which would\n require a Judge to include a copy of a Contract as part of the\n evidence justifying eir Ruling.\n\n In addition, this Rule shall never be construed such that a\n Player may not disclose part of all of any Contract of which e\n is a party.\n\n'),(496474,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4525 (Murphy), 28 August 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Weekly Report shall include the following\n information for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n The Notary\'s Monthly Report shall include the Charter of each\n Organization.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of\n any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that Organization.\n\n'),(496475,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s weekly report shall include the following\n information for each organization:\n\n a) Its name.\n b) Its administrator.\n c) Its executor.\n d) The maintainer of its charter.\n e) A list of players within its jurisdiction.\n\n The Notary\'s monthly report shall include the charter of each\n organization.\n\n As soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of an\n organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that organization.\n\n'),(496473,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Weekly Report shall include the following\n information for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n The Notary\'s Monthly Report shall include the SLC of each\n Organization.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of\n any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that Organization.\n\n'),(496471,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Report shall include the following information\n for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution\n of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If\n an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the\n above information for that Organization.\n\n'),(496472,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions,\n and generic information, excluding holdings, of currencies.\n\n The Notary\'s Report shall include the following information:\n\n (A) For each organization:\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n (B) For each currency, its name, mintor, recordkeepor, and\n Minimum Unit Quantity.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of\n any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that Organization.\n\n'),(496470,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(10) by Proposal 01-002 (Blob), 2 February 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Notary, whose responsibility it is to\n maintain a Record of Organizations and their Jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Report shall include the following information\n for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution\n of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If\n an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the\n above information for that Organization.\n\n'),(496468,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Notary, whose responsibility it is to\n maintain a Record of Organizations and their Jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Report includes the following information, for\n every Organization:\n\n i) Its Name.\n ii) Its Administrator.\n iii) Its Executor.\n iv) The Maintainer of its SLC.\n v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC.\n\n'),(496469,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Notary\'s Report shall include the following information\n for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution\n of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If\n an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the\n above information for that Organization.\n\n'),(496467,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Notary. The Notary shall\n generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of\n Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their\n SLCs.\n\n The Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;\n\n i) The Name of every Organization.\n ii) The Administrator of every Organization.\n iii) The Executor of every Organization.\n iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC.\n v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s\n SLC.\n\n The Notary shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s\n budget.\n\n'),(496466,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(6) Substantially by Rule 1458, 26 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Notary. The Notary shall\n generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of\n Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their\n SLCs.\n\n The Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;\n\n i) The Name of every Organization.\n ii) The Administrator of every Organization.\n iii) The Executor of every Organization.\n iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC.\n v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s\n SLC.\n\n'),(496465,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Infected and Amended(5) Substantially by Rule 1454, 12 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Notary. The Notary shall\n generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of\n Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their\n SLCs.\n\n The Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;\n\n i) The Name of every Organization.\n ii) The Administrator of every Organization.\n iii) The Executor of every Organization.\n iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC.\n v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s\n SLC.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(496463,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Officer called the Notary. The Notary\n shall generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of\n Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their\n SLCs.\n\n The Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;\n\n i) The Name of every Organization.\n ii) The Administrator of every Organization.\n iii) The Executor of every Organization.\n iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC.\n v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s\n SLC.\n\n'),(496464,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(4) Cosmetically by Proposal 2810 (Blob), 8 February 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there exist the Office of Notary. The Notary shall\n generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of\n Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their\n SLCs.\n\n The Notary shall maintain an up-to-date record of the following;\n\n i) The Name of every Organization.\n ii) The Administrator of every Organization.\n iii) The Executor of every Organization.\n iv) The Maintainer of every Organization\'s SLC.\n v) The Players within the Jurisdiction of every Organization\'s\n SLC.\n\n'),(496462,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2451, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Officer called the Notary. The Notary\n shall generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of\n Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their\n Compacts.\n\n The Notary shall maintain an up-to-date list of the Names of all\n Organizations, and an up-to-date list of the Players under the\n Jurisdiction of the Compacts of those Organizations.\n\n E Shall also keep track of the Administrators of each\n Organization, and the Executors of those Organizations with\n Treasuries.\n\n'),(496461,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Officer called the Notary. The Notary\n shall generally be responsible for maintaining a Record of\n Organizations and the Players under the Jurisdiction of their\n Compacts.\n\n The Notary shall maintain an up-to-date list of the Names of all\n Organizations, and an up-to-date list of the Players under the\n Jurisdiction of the Compacts of those Organizations.\n\n E Shall also keep track of the Administrators of each\n Organization, and the Executors of those Organizations with\n Treasuries.\n\n The Notary\'s Salary shall be 5 Points per Nomic Week.\n\n'),(496460,'zefram',NULL,1458,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1458 by Proposal 1575, 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist an Officer called the Notary. The Notary\n shall generally be responsible for the administration of\n Contracts and Contract Law.\n\n The Notary shall maintain a record of all Contracts legally\n entered into. E shall retain a copy of a Contract as long as it\n is legally in force.\n\n The Notary\'s Salary shall be 3 Points per Nomic Week.\n\n'),(496459,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1457 by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496458,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Only Players within the Jurisdiction of a SLC may CFJ that a\n Player has violated that SLC.\n\n All Players within the Jurisdiction of a SLC are automatically\n ineligible to Judge a CFJ that a Player has violated that SLC.\n\n'),(496457,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has\n been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall\n inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the\n nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the\n identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as\n soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players\n within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.\n\n If, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the\n SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall\n declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to\n initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and\n the violated SLC.\n\n If any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim\n of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call\n for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the\n SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.\n\n All Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and\n the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no\n Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is\n overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the\n extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.\n\n'),(496456,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has\n been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall\n inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the\n nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the\n identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as\n soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players\n within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.\n\n If, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the\n SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall\n declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to\n initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and\n the violated SLC.\n\n If, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim\n of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call\n for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the\n SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.\n\n All Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and\n the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no\n Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is\n overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the\n extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.\n\n'),(496455,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin; disi.), 2 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has\n been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall\n inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the\n nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the\n identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as\n soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players\n within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.\n\n If, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the\n SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall\n declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to\n initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and\n the violated SLC.\n\n If, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim\n of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call\n for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the\n SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.\n\n All Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and\n the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no\n Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is\n overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the\n extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player who called the\n CFJ is guilty of the Infraction of False Claim of SLC Violation\n whose penalty is 0.5 VTs. This Infraction transfer shall be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If such a\n FALSE Judgement is overturned upon appeal, this VT shall be\n refunded to eim, this transfer to be detected and reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(496454,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(7) Cosmetically by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has\n been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall\n inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the\n nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the\n identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as\n soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players\n within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.\n\n If, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the\n SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall\n declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to\n initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and\n the violated SLC.\n\n If, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim\n of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call\n for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the\n SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.\n\n All Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and\n the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no\n Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is\n overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the\n extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player who called the\n CFJ is guilty of the Infraction of False Claim of SLC Violation\n whose penalty is 1 Mil. This Infraction transfer shall be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If such a\n FALSE Judgement is overturned upon appeal, this Mil shall be\n refunded to eim, this transfer to be detected and reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(496453,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(6) Cosmetically by Proposal 2745 (Swann), 18 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has\n been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall\n inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the\n nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the\n identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as\n soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players\n within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.\n\n If, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the\n SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall\n declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to\n initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and\n the violated SLC.\n\n If, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim\n of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call\n for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the\n SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.\n\n All Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and\n the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no\n Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is\n overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the\n extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player who called the\n CFJ is guilty of an Infraction whose penalty is 1 Mil. This\n Infraction transfer shall be detected and reported by the Clerk\n of the Courts. If such a FALSE Judgement is overturned upon\n appeal, this Mil shall be refunded to eim, this transfer to be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(496452,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has\n been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall\n inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the\n nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the\n identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as\n soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players\n within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.\n\n If, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the\n SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall\n declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to\n initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and\n the violated SLC.\n\n If, any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim\n of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call\n for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the\n Compact. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.\n\n All Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and\n the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no\n Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is\n overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the\n extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player who called the\n CFJ is guilty of an Infraction whose penalty is 1 Mil. This\n Infraction transfer shall be detected and reported by the Clerk\n of the Courts. If such a FALSE Judgement is overturned upon\n appeal, this Mil shall be refunded to eim, this transfer to be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n'),(496451,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 4 July 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player within the Jurisdiction of a Compact believes\n the Compact to have been Violated by another Player, e shall\n inform the Administrator of that Compact\'s Organization of that\n belief, along with the nature of the Violation, the Violated\n text of the Compact, and the identity of the Violating Player.\n The Administrator shall then, As Soon As Possible, distribute\n this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the\n Violated Compact.\n\n If, within seven days of this distribution, no Player within the\n Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Administrator\n shall declare the Compact Violated. The Administrator is then\n allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the\n Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact.\n\n If, however, any Player under the Compact\'s Jurisdiction\n disputes the claim of Violation within seven days, then any\n Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for\n Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated the\n Compact. Such a Call for Judgement cannot be made in any other\n circumstance.\n\n All Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n In the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Compact has\n been Violated and the Compact\'s Administrator shall perform the\n same duties as when no Player contests the claim. In the event\n that such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player which called the CFJ\n shall lose 1 Mil to the Bank; this transfer shall be detected\n and reported by the Administrator of the Compact\'s Organization,\n if the Organization does not possess a Treasury, by its Executor\n otherwise.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496450,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2604, 26 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player within the Jurisdiction of a Compact believes\n the Compact to have been Violated by another Player, e shall\n inform the Administrator of that Compact\'s Organization of that\n belief, along with the nature of the Violation, the Violated\n text of the Compact, and the identity of the Violating Player.\n The Administrator shall then, As Soon As Possible, distribute\n this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the\n Violated Compact.\n\n If, within seven days of this distribution, no Player within the\n Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Administrator\n shall declare the Compact Violated. The Administrator is then\n allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the\n Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact.\n\n If, however, any Player under the Compact\'s Jurisdiction\n disputes the claim of Violation within seven days, then any\n Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for\n Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated the\n Compact. Such a Call for Judgement cannot be made in any other\n circumstance.\n\n All Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n In the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Compact has\n been Violated and the Compact\'s Administrator shall perform the\n same duties as when no Player contests the claim. In the event\n that such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player which called the CFJ\n shall lose 1 Mil to the Bank; this transfer shall be detected\n and reported by the Administrator of the Compact\'s Organization,\n if the Organization does not possess a Treasury, by its Executor\n otherwise.\n\n'),(496449,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any Player within the Jurisdiction of a Compact believes\n the Compact to have been Violated by another Player, e shall\n inform the Administrator of that Compact\'s Organization of that\n belief, along with the nature of the Violation, the Violated\n text of the Compact, and the identity of the Violating Player.\n The Administrator shall then, As Soon As Possible, distribute\n this information to all Players within the Jurisdiction of the\n Violated Compact.\n\n If, within seven days of this distribution, no Player within the\n Compact\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Administrator\n shall declare the Compact Violated. The Administrator is then\n allowed to initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the\n Rules and eir Organization\'s Compact.\n\n If, however, any Player under the Compact\'s Jurisdiction\n disputes the claim of Violation within seven days, then any\n Player within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction may submit a Call for\n Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has Violated the\n Compact. Such a Call for Judgement cannot be made in any other\n circumstance.\n\n All Players within the Compact\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n In the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Compact has\n been Violated and the Compact\'s Administrator shall perform the\n same duties as when no Player contests the claim. In the event\n that such a CFJ is found FALSE, the Player which called the CFJ\n shall lose 5 Marks to the Bank; this transfer shall be detected\n and reported by the Administrator of the Compact\'s Organization,\n if the Organization does not possess a Treasury, by its Executor\n otherwise.\n\n'),(496448,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1697, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any party to a Contract believes the Contract has been\n breached, that party shall inform the Notary that e believes the\n Contract has been breached, specifying which party e believes\n breached the Contract. The Notary shall then, as soon as\n possible, distribute this notice to all parties of the Contract.\n If, within seven days of this distribution, no party of the\n Contract disputes the claim of breach, the Notary shall declare\n the Contract breached, and order any and all forfeitures and\n transfers of Points and Currencies that may be required by the\n Rules or the Contract in the event of a breach.\n\n If, however, any party disputes the claim of breach within seven\n days, then any party of the Contract in dispute may submit a\n Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific party of the\n Contract has breached the Contract. No Player who is not a\n party of the Contract in question may make such a Call for\n Judgement, nor may such a Call for Judgement be made in any\n other circumstance. All Players who are parties to the Contract\n are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n In the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Contract is\n breached, and the Notary shall perform the same duties as when\n no party contests the claim. In the event that such a CFJ is\n found FALSE, the Player which called the CFJ shall lose 5 Marks;\n this transfer shall be detected and reported by the Notary.\n\n'),(496446,'zefram',NULL,1456,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Contract is Breached if any party to the Contract fails, for\n any reason, to perform any action required of em by the\n Contract, or performs, for any reason, any action prohibited of\n em by the Contract. A Breach is officially determined when the\n Notary finds a Player in Violation of the Contract\'s Terms, as\n described in other Rules.\n\n If a Party cannot fulfill the Terms of the Contract because to\n do so would conflict with the Rules, e is required to Breach\n the Contract and must suffer the penalties for a Breach. (This\n applies even if other Rules absolve the Party from obeying the\n Terms.)\n\n The following shall take place in the event that a party of a\n Contract breaches that contract:\n\n i) 20 Marks shall be immediately transferred from the\n breaching Player to the Bank.\n ii) The breaching Player shall gain 3 Blots.\n iii) 30 Marks shall be divided as evenly as possible and\n transferred from the breaching Player to each of the other\n parties of the Contract.\n\n A Contract may specify additional penalties which are to be\n imposed in the event of a breach; however, such penalties shall\n be limited to the transfer of Currencies from the party who\n breached the Contract to any or all of the other Parties of the\n Contract.\n\n The Notary shall be responsible for reporting all Currency and\n Blot changes which arise as a result of this Rule.\n\n In the event of a breach, the Notary shall have the authority to\n order all specifically enumerated Currency transfers required by\n the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the Contract which has\n been Breached. This authority is limited to ordering the\n transfer of Currencies from the Party in breach to the Bank\n and/or to other Parties of the Contract.\n\n'),(496447,'zefram',NULL,1457,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1457 by Proposal 1575, 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n When any party to a Contract believes the Contract has been\n breached, that party shall inform the Notary that e believes the\n Contract has been breached, specifying which party e believes\n breached the Contract. The Notary shall then, as soon as\n possible, distribute this notice to all parties of the Contract.\n If, within seven days of this distribution, no party of the\n Contract disputes the claim of breach, the Notary shall declare\n the Contract breached, and order any and all forfeitures and\n transfers of Points and Currencies that may be required by the\n Rules or the Contract in the event of a breach.\n\n If, however, any party disputes the claim of breach within seven\n days, then any party of the Contract in dispute may submit a\n Call for Judgement, alleging that a specific party of the\n Contract has breached the Contract. No Player who is not a\n party of the Contract in question may make such a Call for\n Judgement, nor may such a Call for Judgement be made in any\n other circumstance. All Players who are parties to the Contract\n are automatically ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n In the event that such a CFJ is found TRUE, the Contract is\n breached, and the Notary shall perform the same duties as when\n no party contests the claim. In the event that such a CFJ is\n found FALSE, the Player which made the Call for Judgement shall\n lose 5 Points, which shall be reported by the Notary.\n\n'),(496444,'zefram',NULL,1456,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All parties to a Contract must abide by all terms of the\n Contract at all times, or suffer the penalties for breach of\n Contract.\n\n A Contract is breached if any party to the Contract fails, due\n to neglect, inability, or unwillingness, to perform any action\n required of em by the Contract, or performs, voluntarily or\n involuntarily, any action prohibited of em by the Contract. In\n the event that a party would be required to violate the Rules in\n any way in order to uphold a Contract, the party is required to\n breach the Contract.\n\n A party which breaches a Contract commits a Class C Crime. In\n addition, 30 Points shall be taken from the party in breach and\n distributed as evenly as possible to the other parties of the\n Contract, with any remainder being destroyed. If the party in\n breach does not have enough Points for all of these transfers to\n be executed in full, they shall be deferred until such time as\n the party in breach has sufficient Points such that all of these\n transfers may be executed in full.\n\n A Contract may specify additional penalties which are to be\n imposed in the event of a breach; however, such penalties shall\n be limited to the mandatory transfer of Points or Currencies\n from the party who breached the Contract to any or all of the\n other parties of the contract.\n\n The Notary shall be responsible for reporting all Score,\n Currency, and Blot changes which arise as a result of this Rule.\n All Point Penalties herein are non-punitive.\n\n In the event of a breach, the Notary shall have the authority to\n order those Point and Currency forfeitures and transfers which\n are required by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the\n Contract which has been breached. This authority is limited to\n ordering the forfeiture of Points possessed by the party in\n breach and the transfer of Points or Currencies from the party\n in breach to any or all of the other parties of the Contract,\n but only to the extent permitted by the Rules pertaining to\n Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached.\n\n'),(496445,'zefram',NULL,1456,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1696, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All parties to a Contract must abide by all terms of the\n Contract at all times, or suffer the penalties for breach of\n Contract.\n\n A Contract is breached if any party to the Contract fails, due\n to neglect, inability, or unwillingness, to perform any action\n required of em by the Contract, or performs, voluntarily or\n involuntarily, any action prohibited of em by the Contract. In\n the event that a party would be required to violate the Rules in\n any way in order to uphold a Contract, the party is required to\n breach the Contract.\n\n The following shall take place in the event that a party of a\n Contract breaches that contract:\n\n * 20 Marks shall be immediately transferred from the breaching\n Player to the Bank.\n * The breaching Player shall gain 3 Blots.\n * 30 Marks shall be divided as evenly as possible and\n transferred from the breaching Player to each of the other\n parties of the Contract.\n\n A Contract may specify additional penalties which are to be\n imposed in the event of a breach; however, such penalties shall\n be limited to the mandatory transfer of Points or Currencies\n from the party who breached the Contract to any or all of the\n other parties of the contract.\n\n The Notary shall be responsible for reporting all Score,\n Currency, and Blot changes which arise as a result of this Rule.\n All Point Penalties herein are non-punitive.\n\n In the event of a breach, the Notary shall have the authority to\n order those Point and Currency forfeitures and transfers which\n are required by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the\n Contract which has been breached. This authority is limited to\n ordering the forfeiture of Points possessed by the party in\n breach and the transfer of Points or Currencies from the party\n in breach to any or all of the other parties of the Contract,\n but only to the extent permitted by the Rules pertaining to\n Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached.\n\n'),(496443,'zefram',NULL,1456,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1456 by Proposal 1575, 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n All parties to a Contract must abide by all terms of the\n Contract at all times, or suffer the penalties for breach of\n Contract.\n\n A Contract is breached if any party to the Contract fails, due\n to neglect, inability, or unwillingness, to perform any action\n required of em by the Contract, or performs, voluntarily or\n involuntarily, any action prohibited of em by the Contract. In\n the event that a party would be required to violate the Rules in\n any way in order to uphold a Contract, the party is required to\n breach the Contract.\n\n A party which breaches a Contract shall immediately lose 20\n Points, and gain 3 Blots. In addition, 30 Points shall be taken\n from the party in breach and distributed as evenly as possible\n to the other parties of the Contract, with any remainder being\n destroyed. If the party in breach does not have enough Points\n for all of these transfers to be executed in full, they shall be\n deferred until such time as the party in breach has sufficient\n Points such that all of these transfers may be executed in full.\n\n A Contract may specify additional penalties which are to be\n imposed in the event of a breach; however, such penalties shall\n be limited to the mandatory transfer of Points or Currencies\n from the party who breached the Contract to any or all of the\n other parties of the contract.\n\n The Notary shall be responsible for reporting all Score,\n Currency, and Blot changes which arise as a result of this Rule.\n All Point Penalties herein are non-punitive.\n\n In the event of a breach, the Notary shall have the authority to\n order those Point and Currency forfeitures and transfers which\n are required by the Rules pertaining to Contracts and by the\n Contract which has been breached. This authority is limited to\n ordering the forfeiture of Points possessed by the party in\n breach and the transfer of Points or Currencies from the party\n in breach to any or all of the other parties of the Contract,\n but only to the extent permitted by the Rules pertaining to\n Contracts and by the Contract which has been breached.\n\n'),(496439,'zefram',NULL,1454,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1454 by Proposal 3638 (Michael), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496440,'zefram',NULL,1455,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1455 by Proposal 1575, 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Contract is a Nomic Entity which has the legal force to\n require one or more Players to perform any action, or\n face penalties for Breach of Contract.\n\n Only Players may be parties to a Contract.\n\n A Contract must specify the identities of all Players who\n are parties of the Contract. A Contract may also specify any or\n all of the following:\n\n * How the Contract may be changed; if this is not specified, the\n Contract may not be changed after it has been enacted.\n * How the Contract may be dissolved; if this is not specified,\n the Contract may only be dissolved as specified in the Rules.\n * How additional parties may be joined to the Contract after it\n has been enacted; if this is not specified, additional parties\n may not be added to the Contract after it has been enacted.\n * How a party to the Contract may be released from the Contract;\n if this is not specified, no party of the Contract may be\n released from the Contract while the Contract continues to\n exist.\n * What actions the parties to the contract are required to\n perform, or are prohibited from performing, and under what\n conditions these requirements or prohibitions have force.\n * What penalties are imposed upon a party who breaches the\n Contract.\n\n A new Contract is entered into only when the Notary has received\n identical copies of the Contract from every party named in the\n Contract. The Notary shall send a notification to all parties\n of a contract as soon as possible after it has been legally\n entered into. The Contract shall be in force no sooner than the\n moment of that notification.\n\n A Contract ceases to have force at the moment it is dissolved in\n accordance with its own terms, or one or more of the parties of\n the Contract ceases to to be a Player, or the Contract is\n breached as described elsewhere.\n\n Whenever a Contract is changed in any way (including the\n addition of new parties to, or release of existing parties\n from), some party of the Contract must notify the Notary of the\n change as soon as possible after it occurs. In the case of a\n party being added to Contract, the change only has effect if\n that new party sends the notification to the Notary. The\n Notary shall forward this notification of change to all parties\n (including new parties and former parties, if appropriate) of\n the Contract as soon as possible thereafter.\n\n No Contract may be interpreted in such a way as to have any\n legal force on a Player who is not a party of the contract, or\n such that it requires a Player to be joined as a Party of the\n Contract. No term of a Contract may have retroactive effect.\n\n'),(496441,'zefram',NULL,1455,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a class of Organization known as a Contract, whose\n Compact can also be referred to as a Contract.\n\n A Contract consists only of Warranties, which are known as its\n Terms, the Players within its Jurisdiction are known as the\n Parties to the Contract, and the Administrator for all Contracts\n is the Notary.\n\n Contracts do not possess Treasuries, nor do they possess\n Executors.\n\n Contracts have the legal force to impose penalties upon Parties\n that do not abide by the Terms of the Contract. Parties that\n are unwilling or unable to abide by the Terms are said to be in\n Breach of the Contract.\n\n A Contract may specify the following:\n\n i) What actions the parties to the contract are required to\n perform, or are prohibited from performing, and under what\n conditions these requirements or prohibitions have force.\n ii) What penalties are imposed upon a party who Breaches the\n Contract.\n\n The Foundors of a Contract must be the set of all Parties to the\n Contract. In addition to what other Rules require them to\n provide to the Notary, the Foundors must also specify the\n following information:\n\n i) The identity of each Party to the Contract, each of whom\n must be named in the Terms of the Contract itself.\n\n Providing a unique Name for the Contract is optional, this takes\n precedence over the general requirements for information\n provided. If no Name is provided, the Notary must provide a\n unique Name for the Contract and provide this Name to all\n Parties. Parties can then change the Name as provided for in\n the Contract or in other Rules.\n\n A Contract is Private, and the Notary shall send a notification\n to all the Parties of a Contract As Soon As Possible after it\n has been legally entered into. The Contract shall be in force\n no sooner than the moment of that notification.\n\n A Contract ceases to have force at the moment it is dissolved in\n accordance with its Terms, or one or more of the Parties of the\n Contract ceases to be a Player, or the Contract is breached as\n described elsewhere.\n\n When a Contract is changed (including any change in the Parties) a\n current Party to the Contract must inform the Notary of the\n change as soon as possible after it occurs. If a Party is being\n added to, or removed from, the Contract, the change only has\n effect if _that_ Party sends the notification. The Notary shall\n forward this notification of change to all current Parties of\n the Contract As Soon As Possible thereafter.\n\n'),(496442,'zefram',NULL,1455,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a class of Organization known as a Contract, whose\n Compact can also be referred to as a Contract.\n\n A Contract consists only of Warranties, which are known as its Terms,\n the Players within its Jurisdiction are known as the Parties to the\n Contract, and the Administrator for all Contracts is the Notary.\n\n Contracts do not possess Treasuries, nor do they possess Executors.\n\n Contracts have the legal force to impose penalties upon Parties\n that do not abide by the Terms of the Contract. Parties that are\n unwilling or unable to abide by the Terms are said to be in Breach\n of the Contract.\n\n A Contract may specify the following:\n\n i) What actions the parties to the contract are required to\n perform, or are prohibited from performing, and under what\n conditions these requirements or prohibitions have force.\n ii) What penalties are imposed upon a party who Breaches the\n Contract.\n\n The Foundors of a Contract must be the set of all Parties to the\n Contract. In addition to what other Rules require them to provide\n to the Notary, the Foundors must also specify the following\n information:\n\n i) The identity of each Party to the Contract, each of whom must\n be named in the Terms of the Contract itself.\n\n Providing a unique Name for the Contract is optional, this takes\n precedence over the general requirements for information provided. If\n no Name is provided, the Notary must provide a unique Name for the\n Contract and provide this Name to all Parties. Parties can then\n change the Name as provided for in the Contract or in other Rules.\n\n A Contract is Private, and the Notary shall send a notification to\n all the Parties of a Contract As Soon As Possible after it has\n been legally entered into. The Contract shall be in force no\n sooner than the moment of that notification.\n\n A Contract ceases to have force at the moment it is dissolved in\n accordance with its Terms, or one or more of the Parties of the\n Contract ceases to be a Player, or the Contract is breached as\n described elsewhere.\n\n When a Contract is changed (including any change in the Parties) a\n current Party to the Contract must inform the Notary of the change\n as soon as possible after it occurs. If a Party is being added to,\n or removed from, the Contract, the change only has effect if _that_\n Party sends the notification. The Notary shall forward this\n notification of change to all current Parties of the Contract As\n Soon As Possible thereafter.\n\n'),(496437,'zefram',NULL,1454,'Amended(3) Cosmetically by Proposal 2738 (Swann), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect\n of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the\n conditions set out below. This process is known as \"infection\".\n The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is\n that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus\n can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for\n the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.\n\n The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as\n follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic\n Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range\n [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the\n lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that\n week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If\n the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that\n Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus\n Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not\n the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as\n above, unless five such Virus Numbers (none of which is the\n number of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In\n that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in\n that week.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection\n process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion\n of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce\n the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e\n shall announce that no Rule has been infected.\n\n An infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that\n other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the\n sentence \"This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not\n contain this sentence.\", then that sentence is appended to the\n Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the\n sentence is deleted from the Rule.\n\n There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the\n infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.\n\n All Rule Changes by the Virus shall be Unattributed.\n\n'),(496438,'zefram',NULL,1454,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect\n of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the\n conditions set out below. This process is known as \"infection\".\n The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is\n that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus\n can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for\n the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.\n\n The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as\n follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic\n Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range\n [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the\n lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that\n week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If\n the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that\n Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus\n Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not\n the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as\n above, unless five such Virus Numbers (none of which is the\n number of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In\n that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in\n that week.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection\n process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion\n of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce\n the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e\n shall announce that no Rule has been infected.\n\n Given that other Rules permit it, an infected Rule is amended\n by appending to it the following paragraph: \"This Rule, apart\n from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two\n weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this\n paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\"\n\n There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the\n infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.\n\n All Rule Changes by the Virus shall be Unattributed.\n\n'),(496436,'zefram',NULL,1454,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1781, 13 November 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect\n of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the\n conditions set out below. This process is known as \"infection\".\n The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is\n that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus\n can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for\n the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.\n\n The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as\n follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic\n Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range\n [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the\n lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that\n week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If\n the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that\n Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus\n Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not\n the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as\n above, unless five such Virus Numbers (none of which is the\n number of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In\n that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in\n that week.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection\n process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion\n of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce\n the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e\n shall announce that no Rule has been infected.\n\n An infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that\n other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the\n sentence \"This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not\n contain this sentence.\", then that sentence is appended to the\n Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the\n sentence is deleted from the Rule.\n\n There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the\n infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.\n\n'),(496430,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1451 by Proposal 3659 (Repeal-O-Matic), 17 January 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496431,'zefram',NULL,1452,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1452 by Proposal 1561, 17 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rulekeepor is given the authority to define a new Rule\n Category in the following specific situation: If the Category is\n not specified in a Proposal to Create a Rule, AND in the\n Rulekeepor\'s estimation none of the existing Rule Categories is\n appropriate, then the Rulekeepor may unilaterally define and\n create a new Category and assign the new Rule to this Category.\n\n The Rulekeepor must announce the creation of the new Category to\n the Public Forum no later than the publication of the first Rule\n Set which uses the new Category. The announcement may be in the\n same message as the Rule Set itself.\n\n'),(496432,'zefram',NULL,1452,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2577, 21 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Rulekeepor is given the authority to define a new Rule\n Category in the following specific situation: If the Category is\n not specified in a Proposal to Create a Rule, AND in the\n Rulekeepor\'s estimation none of the existing Rule Categories is\n appropriate, then the Rulekeepor may unilaterally define and\n create a new Category and assign the new Rule to this Category.\n\n The Rulekeepor must announce the creation of the new Category to\n the Public Forum no later than the publication of the first Rule\n Set which uses the new Category. The announcement may be in the\n same message as the Rule Set itself.\n\n An empty Rule Category may be removed by the Rulekeepor as e\n sees fit.\n\n'),(496433,'zefram',NULL,1453,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1453 by Proposal 1566, 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a Patent Title known as the Order of Machiavelli. The\n Title is awarded to a Player when a Directive to award the\n Title to that Player is adopted. Any such Directive has an\n Adoption Index of 2. A Player ceases to hold the Title when a\n Directive to remove the Title from that Player is adopted. Any\n such Directive has an Adoption Index of 1.\n\n When a Player holds the Title of the Order of Machiavelli, e is\n entitled to cast a third vote on a Proposal. E does this by\n casting two Extra Votes on the Proposal.\n\n'),(496434,'zefram',NULL,1454,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1454 by Proposal 1573 (Steve), 28 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect\n of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the\n conditions set out below. This process is known as \"infection\".\n The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is\n that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus\n can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for\n the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.\n\n The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as\n follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic\n Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range\n [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the\n lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that\n week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If\n the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that\n Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus\n Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not\n the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as\n above, unless five such Virus Numbers (which are not the\n numbers of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In\n that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in\n that week.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection\n process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion\n of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce\n the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e\n shall that no Rule has been infected.\n\n An infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that\n other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the\n sentence \"This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not\n contain this sentence.\", then that sentence is appended to the\n Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the\n sentence is deleted from the Rule.\n\n There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the\n infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.\n\n'),(496435,'zefram',NULL,1454,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1712, 12 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a Nomic Entity called the Virus which has the effect\n of altering the texts of Rules, in the manner and under the\n conditions set out below. This process is known as \"infection\".\n The effect of the Virus on a Rule, when it has an effect, is\n that of a non-Proposed Amendment to that Rule. Thus, the Virus\n can only be effective inasmuch as it satisfies the Rules for\n the effectiveness of non-Proposed Rule Changes.\n\n The selection of the Rule to be infected by the Virus occurs as\n follows: as soon as possible after the beginning of each Nomic\n Week, the Rulekeepor shall select a random integer in the range\n [M,N], where M and N are, respectively, the numbers of the\n lowest and highest numbered Rules at the beginning of that\n week. Call a number selected in this way a Virus Number. If\n the Virus Number selected is the number of a Rule, then that\n Rule is infected as described below, and no further Virus\n Numbers are selected in that week. If the Virus Number is not\n the number of a Rule, then a new Virus Number is selected as\n above, unless five such Virus Numbers (which are not the\n numbers of a Rule) have already been selected in that week. In\n that case, the Virus is ineffective and no Rule is infected in\n that week.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall publish the results of the selection\n process in the Public Forum within 24 hours of the completion\n of that process. If a Rule has been infected, e shall announce\n the number of that Rule. If no Rule has been infected, then e\n shall announce that no Rule has been infected.\n\n An infected Rule is amended in the following way, given that\n other Rules permit it: if the Rule does not already contain the\n sentence \"This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not\n contain this sentence.\", then that sentence is appended to the\n Rule. If the Rule already contains the sentence, then the\n sentence is deleted from the Rule.\n\n There is one exception to the above: if this Rule is the\n infected Rule, then this Rule automatically Repeals itself.\n\n'),(496428,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(9) Substantially by Rule 1451, 7 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, one P-Note are transferred from\n its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or\n adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the\n outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n This Rule, however, does not mandate the refund of any Petition\n fees already paid to the Bank.\n\n'),(496429,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. A Proposal can only be\n disowned by its Proposer, and then only if its Proposer is\n neither the Assessor nor has been the Assessor at any time after\n the distribution of that Proposal.\n\n The Assessor shall bill the disowning Player a fee of one\n P-Note. All other payments or awards of Currency which would\n result from the submission of, voting upon, or adoption of that\n Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the\n Vote on that Proposal. This Rule, however, neither requires nor\n permits any Payment Orders already executed as a result of this\n Proposal to be vacated.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n cause the payment or award of Currencies as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Disowned Proposal.\n\n'),(496427,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3474 (Swann), 2 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, one P-Note are transferred from\n its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or\n adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the\n outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n This Rule, however, does not mandate the refund of any Petition\n fees already paid to the Bank.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(496425,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, 1 VT are transferred from\n its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or\n adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the\n outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n'),(496426,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Infected and Amended(7) Substantially by Rule 1454, 23 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, 1 VT are transferred from\n its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or\n adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the\n outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely\n without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into\n this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule.\n\n'),(496424,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, five Mil are transferred from\n its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or\n adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the\n outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n'),(496423,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, five Mils are transferred from\n its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or\n adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the\n outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n'),(496421,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2473, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, five Points are transferred from\n that Player to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, or voting upon, that\n Proposal do not take place, regardless of the outcome of the\n Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n'),(496422,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2522, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal is disowned when its Proposer sends a message to the\n Public Forum disowning it, provided that the Proposal in\n question either has not yet been distributed, or less than four\n days have passed since its distribution. Only the Proposer of a\n given Proposal is permitted to disown it. A Proposal which has\n been distributed is not permitted to be disowned if its Proposer\n is currently the Assessor or has been the Assessor at any time\n after that Proposal\'s distribution.\n\n When a Proposal is disowned, five Points are transferred from\n its Proposer to the Bank; this transfer is to be reported by the\n Assessor. All other transfers of Currencies or Blot Changes\n occuring as a result of the submission of, voting upon, or\n adoption of that Proposal do not take place, regardless of the\n outcome of the Vote on that Proposal.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would seek to\n transfer Currencies or cause Blot Changes as a result of the\n submission of, voting upon, or adoption of, a Proposal.\n\n'),(496420,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player may disown eir own proposal if it has not yet been\n distributed or if no more than four days have passed since its\n distribution, by sending a statement disowning it to the Public\n Forum.\n\n The player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five\n points, reported by the Assessor, but any other score changes,\n blots, or other effects resulting from the player\'s submission\n of that proposal, including but not limited to formatting\n penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards\n or penalties for votes cast on that proposal are cancelled and\n shall not be taken into account. The disowning Player does not\n receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it\n passes.\n\n Neither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since\n the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a\n proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would\n otherwise seek to reward or penalize any player based on the\n disowned proposal.\n\n'),(496414,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Clerk of the\n Courts, e is retired from that Office.\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Justiciar, e is\n retired from that Office.\n\n Whenever a Player is both Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar, e\n is removed from the Office of Justiciar.\n\n Neither the Speaker, the Justiciar, nor a nominee for Justiciar\n may be nominated for Clerk of the Courts.\n\n Neither the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, nor a nominee for\n Clerk of the Courts may be nominated for Justiciar.\n\n'),(496415,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually\n exclusive offices. A Player holding one of these offices may\n not come to simultaneously hold another of them, unless there\n are no other Players in the game eligible. This Rule takes\n precedence over any other Rule that governs offices.\n\n'),(496416,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The following sets of positions are mutually exclusive:\n\n a) Promotor and Assessor\n b) Speaker and Clerk of the Courts\n\n A player holding two or more positions within one of these sets\n is removed from all but one of them. If one of them is the\n Speakership, then e retains it; otherwise, e retains the\n position e came to hold most recently.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all rules governing offices.\n\n'),(496417,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of promotor and assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\n'),(496418,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\n'),(496419,'zefram',NULL,1451,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1451 by Proposal 1549, 14 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A player may disown their own proposal if it has not yet been\n distributed or if no more than four days have passed since its\n distribution, by sending a statement disowning it to the Public\n Forum.\n\n The player so disowning a proposal loses a flat fee of five\n points, reported by the Assessor, but any other score changes,\n blots, or other effects resulting from the player\'s submission\n of that proposal, including but not limited to formatting\n penalties, rule repeal rewards, new player bonuses, and awards\n or penalties for votes cast on that proposal are cancelled and\n shall not be taken into account. The disowning Player does not\n receive any Extra Votes for a Proposal he disowned, even if it\n passes.\n\n Neither the Assessor nor any Player who has been Assessor since\n the beginning of the voting period on that proposal may disown a\n proposal, unless that proposal has not yet been distributed.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which would\n otherwise seek to reward or penalize any player based on the\n disowned proposal.\n\n'),(496409,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1449 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496410,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1450 by Proposal 1547, 14 April 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If at any time the Speaker is also CotC or Justiciar, e shall\n transfer such Office to another willing player within one week,\n if possible.\n\n At the end of any full Nomic week during which the Speaker holds\n the Office of either CotC or Justiciar, such Office becomes\n vacant, and will be filled in the usual manner.\n\n'),(496411,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Speaker shall never hold either of the Office of Clerk of\n the Courts or the Office of Justiciar in the normal fashion. If\n the Clerk of the Courts or the Justiciar becomes Speaker, e is\n immediately retired from whichever of those Offices e holds.\n\n'),(496412,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), 8 May 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If at any time the Speaker shall be the Electee to either\n the Office of CotC or the Office of Justiciar, e shall be\n retired from whichever of those Offices e is Electee to.\n\n'),(496413,'zefram',NULL,1450,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If at any time the Speaker shall be the Electee to any of the\n Office of ADoP, the Office of CotC, or the Office of Justiciar,\n e shall be retired from whichever of those Offices e is Electee\n to.\n\n'),(496387,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5057 (root), 5 July 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For an Appellate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement,\n a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE,\n REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a Judgement\n is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules\n may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n If a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of\n Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a\n Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider\n the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only\n consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been\n delivered.\n\n If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is overturned.\n The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are\n necessary to enforce its determination.\n\n When a Judgement is overturned:\n\n a) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the\n CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the\n Judgement being that which a majority of the Appellate Judges\n agree on.\n\n b) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REMAND, then the\n original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the\n Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if it\n were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make the\n same Judgement for the same reason.\n\n c) Otherwise, the original Judgement is ignored, the original\n Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign\n the CFJ to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was\n originally assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same\n Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.\n\n A Board of Appeals is not considered to have returned a\n Judgement until all of its members have submitted eir\n Judgements. As soon as possible after this happened, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall announce the Board\'s decision.\n\n'),(496388,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1447 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496389,'zefram',NULL,1448,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1448 by Proposal 1511, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If any Justice fails to deliver Judgement within one week, e\n shall lose 10 points, and the CotC shall as soon as possible\n select another eligible player at random to serve as Justice in\n place of the defaulting Justice. The CotC is responsible for\n reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor.\n\n'),(496390,'zefram',NULL,1448,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1657, 14 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If any Justice fails to deliver Judgement within one week, e\n shall gain 3 blots, and the CotC shall as soon as possible\n select another eligible player at random to serve as Justice in\n place of the defaulting Justice. The CotC is responsible for\n reporting this Blot change to the Tabulator.\n\n'),(496391,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1449 by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called to Assessor.\n The Assessor has a weekly salary of 5 Points.\n\n'),(496392,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 18 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called to Assessor.\n The Assessor has a weekly salary of 5 Points.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain\n this sentence.\n\n'),(496393,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 18 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Officer called to Assessor.\n The Assessor has a weekly salary of 5 Points.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496394,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1776, 6 November 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is an Office called the Office of Assessor. The Assessor\n has a weekly salary of 8 points.\n\n'),(496395,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is an Office called the Office of Assessor. The Assessor\n has a weekly salary of 8 Mils.\n\n'),(496396,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 3 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n'),(496397,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Null-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 3 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n'),(496398,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), 26 February 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n'),(496399,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), 12 August 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor\n shall receive a weekly salary equal to 0.5 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n The Assessor shall also receive a Commission. At the end\n of the Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor shall\n pay out to emself an amount equal to 5% of the VTs spent\n on voting on that Proposal.\n\n'),(496400,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor\n shall receive a salary equal to 0.5 times the Basic\n Officer Salary.\n\n The Assessor shall also receive a Commission. At the end\n of the Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor shall\n pay out to emself an amount equal to 5% of the VTs spent\n on voting on that Proposal.\n\n'),(496401,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor\n\n There shall exist the Office of Assessor. The Assessor shall\n receive a salary as set in the last Treasuror\'s budget.\n\n The Assessor shall also receive a Commission. At the end of the\n Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor shall pay out to\n emself an amount equal to 5% of the VTs spent on voting on that\n Proposal.\n\n'),(496402,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There exists the Office of Assessor, whose responsibility it is\n to receive and announce the results of Votes on Proposals.\n\n'),(496403,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n (a) There exists the Office of Assessor, whose responsibility it\n is to receive and announce the results of Votes on\n Proposals.\n\n (b) The Assessor shall include the Voting Power of each entity\n on Ordinary and Democratic Proposals in eir Weekly Report. E\n may exclude entities whose Voting Power is zero on both\n Ordinary and Democratic Proposal from the Report.\n\n'),(496404,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting\n Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the\n results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the\n identity, voting power on ordinary proposals, and voting power\n on democratic proposals for each entity with nonzero voting\n power on either ordinary or democratic proposals.\n\n'),(496405,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting\n Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the\n results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the\n identity, voting power on ordinary proposals, and voting power\n on democratic proposals for each entity with nonzero voting\n power on either ordinary or democratic proposals.\n\n (c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting\n Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1\n between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.\n\n'),(496406,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting\n Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the\n results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the\n identity and voting power for Proposals in each Chamber, for all\n entities with nonzero voting power in at least one Chamber.\n\n (c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting\n Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1\n between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.\n\n'),(496407,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include\n\n * a list of the identity and voting power for Proposals in each\n Chamber, for all entities with nonzero voting power in at\n least one Chamber.\n\n * the Voting Potentials of every Player.\n\n * the prevailing mode of voting on Proposals.\n\n'),(496408,'zefram',NULL,1449,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s weekly report shall include a list of the\n identity and voting limit for proposals in each chamber for each\n entity with nonzero voting power in at least one chamber.\n\n'),(496383,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For an Appelate Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the\n following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules may modify this,\n based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n'),(496384,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For an Appellate Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the\n following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules may modify this,\n based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n'),(496385,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For an Appelate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement, a\n Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE,\n REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a\n Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN.\n Other Rules may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n If a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of\n Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a\n Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider\n the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only\n consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been\n delivered.\n\n If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is\n overturned. The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever\n Appelate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.\n\n When a Judgement is overturned:\n\n a) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REVERSE, then\n the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally,\n with the Judgement being that which a majority of the\n Appelate Judges agree on.\n\n b) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then\n the original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is\n recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ\n to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was originally\n assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as\n the original Judge for the same reason.\n\n c) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REMAND, then the\n original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the\n Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if\n it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make\n the same Judgement for the same reason.\n\n d) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be\n reassigned as described above.\n\n As soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have\n submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce\n that this has happened.\n\n'),(496386,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n For an Appellate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement,\n a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE,\n REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a Judgement\n is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules\n may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n If a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of\n Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a\n Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider\n the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only\n consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been\n delivered.\n\n If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is overturned.\n The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are\n necessary to enforce its determination.\n\n When a Judgement is overturned:\n\n a) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the\n CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the\n Judgement being that which a majority of the Appellate Judges\n agree on.\n\n b) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then the\n original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is recused,\n and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to a new\n Judge in the same fashion as it was originally assigned.\n The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as the original\n Judge for the same reason.\n\n c) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REMAND, then\n the original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of\n the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as\n if it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make\n the same Judgement for the same reason.\n\n d) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be\n reassigned as described above.\n\n As soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have\n submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce\n that this has happened.\n\n'),(496375,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin; disi.), 2 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an\n Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of\n 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice\n from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an\n eligible Player to replace eim.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT each\n upon the publication of their determinations.\n\n'),(496376,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(10) Cosmetically by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an\n Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of\n 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice\n from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an\n eligible Player to replace em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT each\n upon the publication of their determinations.\n\n'),(496377,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), 29 December 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an\n Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of\n 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice\n from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an\n eligible Player to replace em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n Each Justice who submits eir determination to the CotC before\n the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a\n Judicial Salary of 1 VT each upon the publication of their\n determinations.\n\n'),(496378,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an\n Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of\n 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice\n from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an\n eligible Player to replace em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n Each Justice who submits eir determination to the CotC before\n the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a\n Judicial Salary of 1 VT upon the publication of eir\n determination.\n\n'),(496379,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(13) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge\n an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc, which results in\n that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this\n case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace\n em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n Each Justice who submits eir determination to the CotC before\n the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a\n Judicial Salary of 20 Stems upon the publication of eir\n determination.\n\n'),(496380,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(14) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), 2 May 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge\n an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc, which results in\n that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this\n case the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace\n em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n If a Justice submits eir determination to the Clerk of the\n Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period,\n then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to that Justice\n the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication\n of eir determination.\n\n'),(496381,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4109 (Steve), 13 February 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge\n an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc. A Justice who does\n not submit eir determination to the CotC within seven days is\n immediately recused as a Justice from that Board. In this case\n the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n If a Justice submits eir determination to the Clerk of the\n Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period,\n then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to that Justice\n the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication\n of eir determination.\n\n'),(496382,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge\n an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc. A Justice who does\n not submit eir determination to the CotC within seven days is\n immediately recused as a Justice from that Board. In this case\n the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall publish these determinations along with\n any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those\n determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n If a Justice submits eir determination to the Clerk of the\n Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period,\n then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to that Justice\n the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication\n of eir determination.\n\n'),(496374,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(8) Cosmetically by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), 7 March 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Infraction of Failing to Judge an\n Appeal, detected and reported by the CotC, bearing a penalty of\n 3 Blots, which results in that Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice\n from that Board. In this case the CotC must randomly select an\n eligible Player to replace eim.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mil each\n upon the publication of their determinations.\n\n'),(496371,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(5) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been constituted upon a given\n question, the Justices shall consider the question amongst\n themselves.\n\n A Justice is permitted to, at any time, appoint another Player\n to act in eir stead as Justice on a given Board of Appeals,\n provided that this second Player is both eligible to hold that\n position and consents to the assignment. A Justice does this\n by so informing the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n Each Justice shall convey eir determination on the matter of the\n Appeal to the Clerk of the Courts before seven days have elapsed\n from the time e became a Justice on that Board of Appeals. If e\n fails to do so, e commits an Infraction, to be reported by the\n Clerk of the Courts and carrying a penalty of three Blots. E\n also becomes ineligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, and\n the Clerk of the Courts shall select a new Player according to\n the procedures for selecting Justices.\n\n A Justice shall either sustain or overturn the matter which is\n being considered.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the Clerk of the Courts, the Clerk shall post to the Public\n Forum these determinations along with any arguments, evidence,\n or other material the Justices have included with their\n determination. If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain\n the matter which is being considered, it is sustained;\n otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of\n overturning a matter upon Appeal shall be determined by the\n Rules which permit an Appeal of that sort.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mils each\n upon the publication of their determinations and the outcome of\n the Appeal.\n\n'),(496372,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2685, 3 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is an Infraction, detected and reported by the\n CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, which results in that\n Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case\n the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace eim.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mils each\n upon the publication of their determinations.\n\n'),(496373,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is an Infraction, detected and reported by the\n CotC, bearing a penalty of 3 Blots, which results in that\n Justice\'s dismissal as a Justice from that Board. In this case\n the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace eim.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall post these determinations in the Public\n Forum along with any arguments, evidence, or other material\n included with those determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mil each\n upon the publication of their determinations.\n\n'),(496365,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1446 by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496366,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1447 by Proposal 1511, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement\n shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise,\n it shall be considered to have been ruled UNKNOWN. The\n Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the\n original CFJ.\n\n The Justices may make Injunctions in the same manner as Judges,\n provided a majority of them agree.\n\n The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that\n Statement may be made.\n\n If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is\n changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the\n compensation e received for judging.\n\n'),(496367,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1656, 14 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement\n shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise,\n it shall be considered to have been ruled UNKNOWN. The\n Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the\n original CFJ.\n\n The Justices may make Injunctions in the same manner as Judges,\n provided a majority of them agree.\n\n The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that\n Statement may be made.\n\n If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is\n changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the\n compensation e received for judging, unless a majority of the\n Justices agree on some lesser forfeit, and so announce in their\n Judgement, in which case the lesser forfeit will apply instead.\n\n'),(496368,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 10 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n If a majority of the Justices\' Judgements agree, the Statement\n shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise,\n it shall be considered to have been ruled UNKNOWN. The\n Justices\' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the\n original CFJ.\n\n The Justices may make Injunctions in the same manner as Judges,\n provided a majority of them agree.\n\n The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that\n Statement may be made.\n\n If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is\n changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the\n compensation e received for judging, unless a majority of the\n Justices agree on some lesser forfeit, and so announce in their\n Judgement, in which case the lesser forfeit will apply instead.\n\n This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this\n sentence.\n\n'),(496369,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been constituted upon a given\n question, the Justices shall consider the question amongst\n themselves.\n\n A Justice is permitted to, at any time, request that any other\n Player act in eir stead as Justice on a given Board of Appeals,\n provided that this second Player is both eligible to hold that\n position and consents to the assignment. A Justice who wishes\n to do this shall inform the Clerk of the Courts of this desire.\n\n Each Justice shall convey eir determination on the matter of the\n Appeal to the Clerk of the Courts before seven days have elapsed\n from the time e became a Justice on that Board of Appeals. If e\n fails to do so, e commits an Infraction, to be reported by the\n Clerk of the Courts and carrying a penalty of three Blots. E\n also becomes ineligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, and\n the Clerk of the Courts shall select a new Player according to\n the procedures for selecting Justices.\n\n A Justice shall either sustain or overturn the matter which is\n being considered.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the Clerk of the Courts, the Clerk shall post to the Public\n Forum these determinations along with any arguments, evidence,\n or other material the Justices have included with their\n determination. If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain\n the matter which is being considered, it is sustained;\n otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of\n overturning a matter upon Appeal shall be determined by the\n Rules which permit an Appeal of that sort.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Points each\n upon the publication of their determinations and the outcome of\n the Appeal.\n\n'),(496370,'zefram',NULL,1447,'Amended(4) by Proposal 2553, 22 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Once a Board of Appeals has been constituted upon a given\n question, the Justices shall consider the question amongst\n themselves.\n\n A Justice is permitted to, at any time, appoint another Player\n to act in eir stead as Justice on a given Board of Appeals,\n provided that this second Player is both eligible to hold that\n position and consents to the assignment. A Justice does this\n by so informing the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n Each Justice shall convey eir determination on the matter of the\n Appeal to the Clerk of the Courts before seven days have elapsed\n from the time e became a Justice on that Board of Appeals. If e\n fails to do so, e commits an Infraction, to be reported by the\n Clerk of the Courts and carrying a penalty of three Blots. E\n also becomes ineligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, and\n the Clerk of the Courts shall select a new Player according to\n the procedures for selecting Justices.\n\n A Justice shall either sustain or overturn the matter which is\n being considered.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the Clerk of the Courts, the Clerk shall post to the Public\n Forum these determinations along with any arguments, evidence,\n or other material the Justices have included with their\n determination. If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain\n the matter which is being considered, it is sustained;\n otherwise, it is overturned. The specific results of\n overturning a matter upon Appeal shall be determined by the\n Rules which permit an Appeal of that sort.\n\n All three Justices receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Points each\n upon the publication of their determinations and the outcome of\n the Appeal.\n\n'),(496361,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC\n called its Regulations. The Adminstrator for each Contest\n is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within\n the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster,\n are its Contestants.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be Posted to the Public Forum\n to have effect.\n\n Each Contest has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(496362,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), 15 January 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC\n called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest\n is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within\n the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster,\n are its Contestants.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be Posted to the Public Forum\n to have effect.\n\n Each Contest has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(496363,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC\n called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest\n is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within\n the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster,\n are its Contestants.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be published to have effect.\n\n Each Contest has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(496364,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC\n called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest\n is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within\n the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster,\n are its Contestants.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be published to have effect.\n\n'),(496337,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(13) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity Votes upon a Proposal when e, during the Voting\n Period of that Proposal, informs the Assessor of the Vote (or\n Votes) e is casting upon that Proposal.\n\n A Voting Entity may specify that e casts no Votes on a Proposal,\n and doing so cancels any previously Votes cast on that Proposal\n (if done during the Voting Period of that Proposal). Cancelled\n Votes are not counted by the Assessor and do not count toward\n Quorum.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a\n given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity a\n number of VTs equal to the cost of the Votes cast on that\n Proposal by that entity.\n\n'),(496338,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(14) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), 3 April 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a\n given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity a\n number of Voting Tokens equal to the votes cast on that\n Proposal by that entity.\n\n'),(496339,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(15) by Proposal 3783 (Blob), 24 August 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Proposals have a voting cost, equal to the Voting Tariff\n at the time they were distributed. If there was no value\n set for the Voting Tariff at that time, then the voting\n cost is 1 VT.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a\n given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity a\n number of Voting Tokens equal to the votes cast on that\n Proposal by that entity multiplied by the voting cost for\n that Proposal.\n\n'),(496340,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(20)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Votes on Proposals have a voting cost, based on the Voting\n Tariff and Voting Factor at the time they were distributed.\n If either of these had no value set at that time, then they\n are deemed to have been 1 VT and 1, respectively.\n\n The voting cost of an entity\'s first vote on an Interested\n Proposal is equal to the Voting Tariff. The voting cost of each\n additional vote by that entity on that Proposal is equal to the\n previous vote\'s cost multiplied by the Voting Factor, then\n rounded up to the nearest multiple of the MUQ of VTs.\n\n The voting cost for all votes on a Disinterested Proposal is\n zero.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a\n given Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Entity that voted\n on the Proposal as follows:\n\n (1) For each FOR vote cast on the Proposal, a number of\n Positively charged Voting Tokens equal to the total cost of\n those votes.\n\n (2) For each AGAINST vote cast on the Proposal, a number of\n Negatively charged Voting Tokens equal to the total cost of\n those votes.\n\n (3) For each ABSTAIN vote cast on the Proposal, a number of\n Voting Tokens equal to the total cost of those votes.\n\n'),(496341,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(21)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of an\n Interested Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each entity that\n voted on the Proposal as follows:\n\n (1) For N FOR votes cast on the Proposal, N squared +VTs.\n\n (2) For N AGAINST votes cast on the Proposal, N squared -VTs.\n\n (3) For N ABSTAIN votes cast on the Proposal, N squared VTs.\n\n'),(496342,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(22)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of an\n Interested, Democratic Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each\n entity that voted on the Proposal a number of Voting Tokens\n equal to the square of the total number of votes (FOR, AGAINST\n and ABSTAIN) cast by the entity on that Proposal.\n\n'),(496343,'zefram',NULL,1443,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1443 by Proposal 1493, 15 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proposal may be proto-Proposed by sending it to the Public\n Forum and identifying it as a proto-Proposal.\n\n A proposal which passes, and which was proto-proposed in the\n same form between four and fourteen days before being submitted\n as a proposal, shall earn its proposer an extra two points at\n the end of the voting period.\n\n'),(496344,'zefram',NULL,1443,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1606, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proto-Proposal is any text which meets the following\n conditions:\n\n * it has been sent to the Public Forum\n * the author of the message containing the Proto-Proposal is\n verifiable\n * the author has clearly identified the text as a Proto-Proposal\n\n A Proposal is considered to have been Proto-Proposed if a\n Proto-Proposal has been made between three and fourteen days\n prior to the Proposal\'s submission, which is identical to the\n submitted Proposal.\n\n The Proposer of any Proposal which has been Proto-Proposed and\n which Passes shall receive two Points upon the publishing of\n Voting Results of that Proposal. The Assessor is responsible\n for reporting this score change.\n\n'),(496345,'zefram',NULL,1443,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1720, 19 September 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proto-Proposal is any text which meets the following\n conditions:\n\n * it has been sent to the Public Forum\n * the author of the message containing the Proto-Proposal is\n verifiable\n * the author has clearly identified the text as a Proto-Proposal\n\n A Proposal is Proto-Proposed if and only if a Proto-Proposal\n which is identical to the submitted Proposal has been made\n between three and fourteen days prior to the Proposal\'s\n submission, and the Assessor is informed of this fact prior\n to the conclusion of the Voting Period for that Proposal.\n\n The Proposer of any Proposal which has been Proto-Proposed and\n which Passes shall receive two Points upon the publishing of\n Voting Results of that Proposal. The Assessor is responsible\n for reporting this score change.\n\n'),(496346,'zefram',NULL,1443,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1770, 31 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Proto-Proposal is any text which meets the following\n conditions:\n\n * it has been sent to the Public Forum\n * the author of the message containing the Proto-Proposal is\n verifiable\n * the author has clearly identified the text as a Proto-Proposal\n\n A Proposal is Proto-Proposed if and only if a Proto-Proposal\n which is identical to the submitted Proposal has been made\n between three and fourteen days prior to the Proposal\'s\n submission, and the Assessor is informed of this fact prior\n to the conclusion of the Voting Period for that Proposal.\n\n The Proposer of any Proposal which has been Proto-Proposed and\n which Passes shall receive two Points upon the publishing of\n Voting Results of that Proposal. The Assessor shall report this\n transfer, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the\n Voting Results of the Proposal in question.\n\n'),(496347,'zefram',NULL,1444,'Repealed',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496348,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1446 by Proposal 1509, 24 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name,\n Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund.\n\n It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an\n announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations.\n Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that\n contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster.\n\n The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has\n responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all\n score changes and currency transfers taking place under the\n Regulations, administers the Contest Fund, and maintains the\n Regulations.\n\n The Contest Fund is an entity capable of owning, trading, and\n spending Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player,\n but only as authorized by the Regulations.\n\n The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All\n Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations\n except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also\n specify:\n - how the Contestmaster is replaced,\n - how currencies and Points are transferred to or from the\n Contest Fund,\n - the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, which shall be\n in Points,\n - additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants,\n - how the Regulations may be changed, and\n - ways for the Contest to be dissolved.\n\n A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and\n paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A\n Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the\n Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum.\n\n A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no\n provision for replacing em, or as otherwise provided in the\n rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest\n Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no\n provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the\n Contestants.\n\n If according to the Regulations the Contest Fund must transfer\n Points and/or currency to a Contestant, and the Fund does not\n have sufficient resources, then enough of the Contestmaster\'s\n Points and/or currency are transferred to the Fund to cover the\n transaction.\n\n If e does not have sufficient Points or currency to accomplish\n this, then each Contestant is given back eir entry fee, and the\n Contestmaster loses the number of Points of the returned entry\n fees. The Contest is then dissolved.\n\n No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule.\n\n This transfer is not taxable. This Rule takes precedence over\n all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency\n transfers are legal and/or taxable, or which would assign Blots\n to any Player.\n\n'),(496360,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(11) Substantially by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), 8 June 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class\n of Contests. Each single Organization within this class is a\n Contest. The SLC associated with a Contest are that Contest\'s\n Regulations. A Contest\'s Administrator is that Contest\'s\n Contestmaster. A Contest\'s Contestants are those Players within\n the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC, other than the\n Contestmaster.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be Posted to the Public Forum\n to have effect.\n\n Each Contest has Mint Authority.\n\n'),(496359,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(10) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class\n of Contests. Each single Organization within this class is a\n Contest. The SLC associated with a Contest are that Contest\'s\n Regulations. A Contest\'s Administrator is that Contest\'s\n Contestmaster. A Contest\'s Contestants are those Players within\n the Jurisdiction of that Group\'s SLC, other than the\n Contestmaster.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be Posted to the Public Forum\n to have effect.\n\n'),(496357,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2562, 6 April 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Contest\" is an Organization of Class Contest; this Class is a\n valid Class of Organization.\n\n All Contests are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a\n Contest is permitted to contain any Player. Each Contest shall\n possess exactly one Treasury. The Executor of a Contest is, at\n all times, its Administrator.\n\n A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the\n Contest\'s initial Administrator.\n\n The following definitions pertain to Contests:\n\n * Regulations: a synonym for a Contest\'s Compact.\n * Contestmaster: a synonym for a Contest\'s Administrator.\n * Contest Fund: a synonym for a Contest\'s Treasury.\n * Contestant: a Player who is part of a Contest\'s Jurisdiction,\n but who is not the Contest\'s Administrator.\n\n A Contest is created by distributing a copy of its initial\n Regulations to the Public Forum, along with the Contest\'s\n Name, any provisions to the contrary in the default Organization\n Rules notwithstanding.\n\n'),(496358,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(9) by Proposal 2584, 1 May 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Contest\" is an Organization of Class Contest; this Class is a\n valid Class of Organization.\n\n All Contests are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a\n Contest is permitted to contain any Player. Each Contest shall\n possess exactly one Treasury. The Executor of a Contest is, at\n all times, its Administrator.\n\n A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the\n Contest\'s initial Administrator.\n\n The following definitions pertain to Contests:\n\n * Regulations: a synonym for a Contest\'s Compact.\n * Contestmaster: a synonym for a Contest\'s Administrator.\n * Contest Fund: a synonym for a Contest\'s Treasury.\n * Contestant: a Player who is part of a Contest\'s Jurisdiction,\n but who is not the Contest\'s Administrator.\n\n A Contest is created by distributing a copy of its initial\n Regulations to the Public Forum, along with the Contest\'s\n Name, any provisions to the contrary in the default Organization\n Rules notwithstanding.\n\n This Rule defers to any Rule which restricts which Players\n may come to be under the Jurisdiction of a Contest, and how\n they may come to be.\n\n'),(496356,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2401, 20 January 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A \"Contest\" is an Organization of Class Contest; this Class is a\n valid Class of Organization.\n\n All Contests are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a\n Contest is permitted to contain any Player. Each Contest shall\n possess exactly one Treasury. The Executor of a Contest is, at\n all times, its Administrator.\n\n A Contest must have exactly one Foundor, who becomes the\n Contest\'s initial Administrator.\n\n The following definitions pertain to Contests:\n\n * Regulations: a synonym for a Contest\'s Compact.\n * Contestmaster: a synonym for a Contest\'s Administrator.\n * Contest Fund: a synonym for a Contest\'s Treasury.\n * Contestant: a Player who is part of a Contest\'s Jurisdiction,\n but who is not the Contest\'s Administrator.\n\n'),(496355,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 1763, 31 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Contest, also known as\n a subgame of Agora Nomic.\n\n A Contest\'s Compact is known as its Regulations, its Administrator is\n known as the Contestmaster, it has one Treasury known as the Contest\n Fund, and its Executor is the Contestmaster.\n\n Players, other than the Contestmaster, within the Regulation\'s\n Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is\n always within the Regulations\' Jurisdiction.\n\n The Foundor of a Contest is its initial Contestmaster. A\n Contest is Public, and the Notary must publish the initial Contest\n Name and Regulations in the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after\n e receives them from the Contestmaster.\n\n'),(496354,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 1763, 31 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Contest, also\n known as a subgame of Agora Nomic.\n\n A Contest\'s Compact is known as its Regulations, its\n Administrator is known as the Contestmaster, it has one Treasury\n known as the Contest Fund, and its Executor is the\n Contestmaster.\n\n Players, other than the Contestmaster, within the Regulation\'s\n Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is\n always within the Regulations\' Jurisdiction.\n\n The Foundor of a Contest is its initial Contestmaster. A\n Contest is Public, and the Notary must publish the initial\n Contest Name and Regulations in the Public Forum As Soon As\n Possible after e receives them from the Contestmaster.\n\n'),(496352,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Contest, also\n known as a subgame of Agora Nomic.\n\n A Contest\'s Compact is known as its Regulations, its\n Administrator is known as the Contestmaster, it has one Treasury\n known as the Contest Fund, and its Executor is the\n Contestmaster.\n\n Players, other than the Contestmaster, within the Regulation\'s\n Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is\n always within the Regulations\' Jurisdiction.\n\n The Foundor of a Contest is its initial Contestmaster. A\n Contest is Public, and the Notary must publish the initial\n Contest Name and Regulations in the Public Forum As Soon As\n Possible after e receives them from the Contestmaster.\n\n'),(496353,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Contest, also known as\n a subgame of Agora Nomic.\n\n A Contest\'s Compact is known as its Regulations, its Administrator is\n known as the Contestmaster, it has one Treasury known as the Contest\n Fund, and its Executor is the Contestmaster.\n\n Players, other than the Contestmaster, within the Regulation\'s\n Jurisdiction are known as its Contestants. The Contestmaster is\n always within the Regulations\' Jurisdiction.\n\n The Foundor of a Contest is its initial Contestmaster. A\n Contest is Public, and the Notary must publish the initial Contest\n Name and Regulations in the Public Forum As Soon As Possible after\n e receives them from the Contestmaster.\n\n'),(496351,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1670, 18 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name,\n Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund.\n\n It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an\n announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations.\n Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that\n contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster.\n\n The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has\n responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all\n currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the\n Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations.\n\n The Contest Fund is a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules.\n The owner of this Treasury is the Contest, and the Executor of\n this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster of the\n Contest.\n\n The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All\n Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations\n except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also\n specify:\n 1. how a Contestmaster is replaced. However, no person may\n become Contestmaster without eir consent;\n 2. how the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent, so\n long as this does not conflict with the Rules;\n 3. the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of\n units of one or more Currency;\n 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants,\n and conditions under which Contestants cease to be\n Contestants;\n 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so\n specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the\n Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the\n new Regulations to the Public Forum, and no such change is\n effective until it is so posted;\n and\n 6. how the Contest may be dissolved.\n\n A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and\n paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A\n Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the\n Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A\n Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to\n that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be\n Contestmaster.\n\n A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no\n provision for replacing em, or upon unanimous agreement of the\n Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in\n the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest\n Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no\n provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the\n Contestants.\n\n No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule.\n\n'),(496350,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(3) by Proposal 1644, 1 August 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name,\n Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund.\n\n It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an\n announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations.\n Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that\n contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster.\n\n The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has\n responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all\n currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the\n Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations.\n\n The Contest Fund is a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules.\n The owner of this Treasury is the Contest, and the Executor of\n this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster of the\n Contest.\n\n The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All\n Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations\n except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also\n specify:\n 1. how a Contestmaster is replaced. However, no person may\n become Contestmaster without eir consent;\n 2. how the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent, so\n long as this does not conflict with the Rules;\n 3. the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of\n units of one or more Currency;\n 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants,\n and conditions under which Contestants cease to be\n Contestants;\n 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so\n specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the\n Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the\n new Regulations to the Public Forum, and no such change is\n effective until it is so posted;\n and\n 6. how the Contest may be dissolved.\n\n A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and\n paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A\n Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the\n Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A\n Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to\n that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be\n Contestmaster.\n\n A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no\n provision for replacing em, or upon unanimous agreement of the\n Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in\n the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest\n Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no\n provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the\n Contestants.\n\n If the Contest Regulations require a transfer to be made, but\n the Contest Fund has insufficient currencies to permit that\n transfer to be made, sufficient currencies to cover the transfer\n shall be involuntarily transferred from the Contestmaster\'s\n Treasury to the Contest Fund. The Contestmaster shall report\n this transfer to the appropriate Recordkeepors.\n\n No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule.\n\n'),(496349,'zefram',NULL,1446,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A contest is a subgame of Agora Nomic, having its own Name,\n Entry Fee, Regulations, Contestmaster, and Contest Fund.\n\n It is created when a Player posts to the Public Forum an\n announcement of the contest, including the Name and Regulations.\n Participants in the subgame are called Contestants of that\n contest. The player making the post becomes the Contestmaster.\n\n The Contestmaster for a given Contest is a Player who has\n responsibility for administering the subgame. He reports all\n currency transfers taking place under the Regulations, is the\n Executor of the Contest Fund, and maintains the Regulations.\n\n The Contest Fund is a Treasury, as provided for in other Rules.\n The owner of this Treasury is the Contest, and the Executor of\n this Treasury is, at all times, the Contestmaster of the\n Contest.\n\n The Regulations specify the operation of the Contest. All\n Contestants, and the Contestmaster, are bound by the Regulations\n except where these conflict with the Rules. They may also\n specify:\n 1. how a Contestmaster is replaced. However, no person may\n become Contestmaster without eir consent;\n 2. how the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent, so\n long as this does not conflict with the Rules;\n 3. the amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of\n units one or more Currency;\n 4. additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants,\n and conditions under which Contestants cease to be\n Contestants;\n 5. how the Regulations may be changed. If they do not so\n specify, the Regulations may not be changed. Whenever the\n Regulations are changed, the Contestmaster must post the\n new Regulations to the Public Forum, and no such change is\n effective until it is so posted;\n and\n 6. how the Contest may be dissolved.\n\n A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and\n paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A\n Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the\n Contestmaster, or by so posting to the Public Forum. A\n Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to\n that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be\n Contestmaster.\n\n A contest is dissolved when there is no Contestmaster and no\n provision for replacing em, or upon unanimous agreement of the\n Contestmaster and all Contestants, or as otherwise provided in\n the rules, or in the Regulations. When this happens the Contest\n Fund is distributed as provided in the Regulations; if no\n provision is made the Fund is divided equally between the\n Contestants.\n\n If the Contest Regulations require a transfer to be made, but\n the Contest Fund has insufficient currencies to permit that\n transfer to be made, sufficient currencies to cover the transfer\n shall be involuntarily transferred from the Contestmaster\'s\n Treasury to the Contest Fund. The Contestmaster shall report\n this transfer to the appropriate Recordkeepors.\n\n No Blots shall be assigned by this Rule.\n\n'),(496335,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(11) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The casting of any votes may only be achieved by the spending\n of VTs, as specified below.\n\n A Voting Entity Votes upon a Proposal when e, during the Voting\n Period of that Proposal, informs the Assessor of the Vote (or\n Votes) e is casting upon that Proposal. This act also comprises\n the implicit submission of a delayed Transfer Order from the\n Voting Entity to the Bank for however many VTs are necessary to\n cast those Votes, to be executed at the end of the Voting Period\n of that Proposal, and also the implicit cancellation of all\n other delayed Transfer Orders submitted but not yet executed by\n Voting on that Proposal.\n\n A Voting Entity may specify that e casts no Votes on a Proposal,\n and doing so cancels any previously Votes cast on that Proposal\n (if done during the Voting Period of that Proposal) and cancels\n any delayed Transfer Orders submitted but not yet executed by\n Voting on that Proposal.\n\n A Voting Entity\'s Votes on a given Proposal are counted for that\n Proposal only if the delayed Transfer Order implicitly submitted\n by Voting on that Proposal is successfully executed at the end\n of the Voting Period of that Proposal.\n\n'),(496336,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(12) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), 26 February 1998',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n A Voting Entity votes upon a Proposal when, during the Voting\n Period of that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or\n votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is\n authorized to vote on that Proposal. A Voting Entity may inform\n the Assessor that e casts no votes on a Proposal, and doing so\n cancels any votes e has previously cast on that Proposal, if\n this is done during the Voting Period of that Proposal.\n Cancelled votes are not counted by the Assessor and do not count\n towards Quorum.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period of a\n Proposal, the Assessor shall bill each Voting Entity one Voting\n Token for each uncancelled vote cast by that Voting Entity on\n that Proposal. In the case where a Voting Entity has cast more\n than one vote on a Proposal, or a Voting Entity has cast votes\n on more than one Proposal, the results of which the Assessor\n has published at the same time, the Assessor is permitted to\n bill the Voting Entity for an amount of Voting Tokens\n equivalent to all the uncancelled votes cast by the Voting\n Entity on those Proposals, instead of billing the Voting Entity\n once for each uncancelled vote e cast.\n\n'),(496334,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n The casting of any votes may only be achieved by the spending\n of VTs, as specified below.\n\n A Player spends a VT to cast a vote on a Proposal currently\n up for vote by notifying the Assessor that e is doing so,\n and at the same time specifying the Proposal which the\n vote will be cast on, and what the vote shall be.\n\n If, at the moment the Player spends a VT in this way, e\n possesses at least one full VT not in Limbo, then the VT\n is legally spent, one vote is made towards the Proposal\n in question, and one VT in the Player\'s Treasury is put\n in Limbo until the end of the Voting Period of the\n Proposal specified. This shall be noted and recorded by\n the Assessor.\n\n If, at the time a Player attempts to spend a VT in this\n manner, e does not have 1 VT not in Limbo, no VT of eirs\n is put into Limbo, and e does not cast that vote.\n\n If several votes are contained in a single message, each\n vote is considered a separate action. If several votes are\n cast on the same Proposal, each vote is considered a separate\n action.\n\n'),(496332,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(8) by Proposal 2519, 10 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may\n use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum\n allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.\n\n A Player casts an extra Vote by notifying the Assessor that e is\n doing so, at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which\n the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself. Extra Votes may only be\n cast on a Proposal during the Voting Period of that Proposal.\n\n If, at the moment the Player casts an extra Vote, e possesses\n at least one Extra Vote, then the Extra Vote is legally cast,\n and one Extra Vote is transferred from the Treasury of the\n Player to the Bank. Otherwise, the Extra Vote is not legally\n cast, and no transfer takes place.\n\n All transfers required by this Rule shall be detected and\n reported by the Assessor.\n\n'),(496333,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 2736 (Oerjan), 7 November 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may\n use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum\n allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.\n\n A Player casts an extra Vote by notifying the Assessor that e is\n doing so, at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which\n the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself. Extra Votes may only be\n cast on a Proposal during the Voting Period of that Proposal.\n\n If, at the moment the Player casts an extra Vote, e\n possesses at least one Extra Vote not in Limbo, then the\n Extra Vote is legally cast, and one Extra Vote of the Player\n is put in Limbo until the end of the Voting Period of the\n Proposal specified.\n\n'),(497303,'rcs','00000001.00000913',2156,'Amended(11) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,','Rule 2156/10 (Power=2)','Rule 2156/10 (Power=2)',1228688761,'Rule 2156/11 (Power=2)\nRule 2156/10 (Power=2)\n\n Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the\n following values and their numeric equivalents:\n\n Alpha - 8\n Beta - 5\n Gamma - 3\n Delta - 2\n Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and\n provinces)\n Savage - 0 (default for all other players)\n\n Changes to caste are secured, lest a coalition of high-caste\n players grant itself a boring permanence.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n initial voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary\n decision is eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half\n that (rounded up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5985 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,'),(497304,'rcs','00000001.00000914',1006,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Offices','Offices',1228688973,'Rule 1006/26 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497167,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2181,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1227766571,'Rule 2181/7 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of classes of assets.\n\n The Accountor\'s report includes a list of all public classes of\n assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5598 (Wooble; disi.), 29 June 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5600 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008'),(497168,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1728,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1227766571,'Rule 1728/21 (Power=3)\nDependent Actions\n\n A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a\n dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the\n action by at least one of the following methods (N is 1 if\n not otherwise specified):\n\n 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.\n 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.\n 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple\n of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.\n\n b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the\n action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and\n method (including the value of N), at most fourteen days\n earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least\n four days earlier.\n\n c) At least one of the following is true:\n\n 1) The performer is the initiator.\n\n 2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due\n to holding a rule-defined position now held by the\n performer.\n\n 3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the\n action depends on support, the performer has supported\n the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance\n does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing\n it.\n\n d) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by\n other rules.\n\n A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise\n permitted by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(497169,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2124,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1227766571,'Rule 2124/8 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is\n equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of\n a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of\n players to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21\n February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008'),(496833,'rcs','00000001.00000807',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1220488626,'Rule 2169/7 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as,\n but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of\n an enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s behalf\n to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the party may\n be subjected to a criminal punishment other than DISCHARGE for\n violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496909,'rcs','00000001.00000856',2019,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1224727277,'Rule 2019/20 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title\n Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the\n larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes\n to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either\n hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done\n so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to\n that case during this period, unless either no panels\n eligible to be so assigned include the Justiciar, or all of\n them do. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the\n Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or\n excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the\n start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting\n limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be\n otherwise (rounded to the nearest integer, breaking ties\n toward odd integers), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5606 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5693 (Goethe), 20 September 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5781 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496910,'rcs','00000001.00000857',2136,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)',1224727435,'Rule 2136/21 (Power=1)\nRule 2136/21 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n\n The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008'),(496911,'rcs','00000001.00000858',2215,'Created by Proposal 5789 (Murphy, Zefram, Michael, Goethe), 22 October','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1224727933,'Rule 2215/0 (Power=2)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant\n to the rules that is intended to mislead others as to its truth\n (or, in the case of a public statement that one performs an\n action, its effectiveness).\n\n For the purpose of this rule:\n\n a) Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making that\n statement.\n\n b) Any conditional clause or other qualifier attached to a\n statement constitutes part of the statement; the nature of\n the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2215 (then 2149), depending on the context of the\nrest of the message.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5789 (Murphy, Zefram, Michael, Goethe), 22 October\n 2008'),(496912,'rcs','00000001.00000859',2150,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5790 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1224728210,'Rule 2150/5 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is generally capable of\n communicating by email in English (including via a translation\n service) is a person.\n\n A first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All\n other persons are second-class.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5760 (comex), 16 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5790 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496913,'rcs','00000001.00000860',2186,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Victory','Victory',1224728528,'Rule 2186/1 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of\n players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496914,'rcs','00000001.00000860',2199,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1224728528,'Rule 2199/2 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. If winning is secured,\n then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured with the same power\n threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(497243,'rcs','00000001.00000901',591,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)',1227767517,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497244,'rcs','00000001.00000901',591,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','','',1227767517,'Rule 591/27 (Power=1.7)\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497245,'rcs','00000001.00000901',2169,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)',1227767517,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(497246,'rcs','00000001.00000901',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','','',1227767517,'Rule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(497247,'rcs','00000001.00000902',2222,'Created by Proposal 5978 (Elysion), 25 November 2008','Maximum Voting Limits','Maximum Voting Limits',1227767728,'Rule 2222/0 (Power=2)\nMaximum Voting Limits\n\n Other rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity may have\n greater a voting limit than as allowed by this rule.\n\n The maximum voting limit for any entity on an ordinary decision\n is 8. The maximum voting limit for any entity on any other\n decision is 1.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5978 (Elysion), 25 November 2008'),(497248,'rcs','00000001.00000902',2126,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)',1227767728,'Rule 2126/58 (Power=2)\nRule 2134/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default\n value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the\n remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008'),(497249,'rcs','00000001.00000902',2126,'Amended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','','',1227767728,'Rule 2126/57 (Power=2)\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the\n during that week gains an E Note.\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497250,'rcs','00000001.00000902',591,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)',1227767728,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497251,'rcs','00000001.00000902',591,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','','',1227767728,'Rule 591/27 (Power=1.7)\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(496927,'rcs','00000001.00000871',1504,'Amended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1225597552,'Rule 1504/31 (Power=2)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged\n a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the\n prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform,\n appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the\n severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the\n consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any\n other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or\n insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive\n service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence\n of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the\n prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time\n limit is specified).\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register, rules to\n the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008'),(497216,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2169,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(497217,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','','',1227766571,'Rule 2169/9 (Power=1.7)\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case. An\n equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the\n operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such\n as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(497218,'rcs','00000001.00000900',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1227766571,'Rule 911/25 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\n\n Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the\n effects, are as follows:\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is\n rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the\n judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior\n question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be\n assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior\n case will not make a better judgement if given a new\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496945,'rcs','00000001.00000884',2178,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1226704975,'Rule 2178/3 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one\n of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its members, that the contract be\n public.\n\n (d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication,\n contains a clause or indication that the contract is a\n pledge.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),\n 29 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008'),(496946,'rcs','00000001.00000885',1586,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5836 (Murphy), 12 October 2008','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1226705062,'Rule 1586/5 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to\n define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same\n entity. A document-defined entity\'s name CANNOT be changed to\n be the same as another document-defined entity.\n\n A document referring to an entity by name refers to the entity\n that had that name when the document first came to include that\n reference, even if the entity\'s name has since changed.\n\n If the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they\n still define that entity but with different properties, then\n that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever\n extent is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5836 (Murphy), 12 October 2008'),(496925,'rcs','00000001.00000869',2193,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5740 (Pavitra, Wooble), 16 October 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1225318055,'Rule 2193/21 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired\n\n The eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its Monsterising\n period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an\n ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising\n period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the\n chokey at that time.\n\n Some types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active\n while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on\n Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less\n than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended\n and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then\n the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5636 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5719 (comex), 7 October 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5734 (Wooble), 9 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5740 (Pavitra, Wooble), 16 October 2008'),(496926,'rcs','00000001.00000870',2154,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1225424167,'Rule 2154/17 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is\n resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated\n during the first half of the nominating period and did not\n refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and\n accepted.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a)\n if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL\n install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two\n or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an\n Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process\n is known as an election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees\n the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible resolve the nomination as\n Failed by announcement; if the office is vacant e shall begin a\n new nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold\n the office as soon as possible.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n If at any time during an election there remains only one valid\n option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the\n remaining candidate in the office by announcement.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start\n of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder. This\n requirement is waived if the office comes to have an\n active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008'),(496817,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2173,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)',1218617946,'Rule 2173/3 (Power=1)\nRule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied obligations\n on its current parties, and will not do so in the future in its\n current form, then any person CAN terminate it by announcing that\n it is obsolete.\n\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\n 2008'),(496818,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2187,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1218617946,'Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008'),(496819,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2193,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1218617946,'Rule 2193/12 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by\n the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by\n the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD\n assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case.\n \n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by\n the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by\n the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD\n assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case.\n sentencing in that case.\n Agoran Monsters begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008'),(496820,'rcs','00000001.00000802',402,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1218617946,'Rule 402/25 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the active player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008'),(496821,'rcs','00000001.00000803',2210,'Created by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','Caste Bootstrapping','Caste Bootstrapping',1218682803,'Rule 2210/1 (Power=2)\nCaste Bootstrapping\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting limit of an\n eligible voter on an ordinary decision whose voting period\n started (time T_s) before castes were defined (time T_c) is\n based on T_c rather than T_s. This rule repeals itself once\n the voting periods of all such decisions have ended.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496822,'rcs','00000001.00000804',1504,'Amended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1219992168,'Rule 1504/28 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN, with\n 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a member\n of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a\n maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the\n maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either\n destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost\n and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if\n sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into\n effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008'),(497138,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1586,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5836 (Murphy), 12 October 2008','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1227766571,'Rule 1586/5 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to\n define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same\n entity. A document-defined entity\'s name CANNOT be changed to\n be the same as another document-defined entity.\n\n A document referring to an entity by name refers to the entity\n that had that name when the document first came to include that\n reference, even if the entity\'s name has since changed.\n\n If the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they\n still define that entity but with different properties, then\n that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever\n extent is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5836 (Murphy), 12 October 2008'),(497139,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1688,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Power','Power',1227766571,'Rule 1688/4 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\n A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)\n thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as\n allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n change\'s power threshold. This threshold defaults to the\n securing rule\'s power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that\n rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(497140,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2140,'Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Power Controls Mutability','Power Controls Mutability',1227766571,'Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)\nPower Controls Mutability\n\n No entity with power below the power of this rule can\n\n (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.\n\n (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than\n its own.\n\n (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with\n power greater than its own. A \"substantive\" aspect of\n an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument\'s\n operation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(497141,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2215,'Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1227766571,'Rule 2215/0 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant\n to the rules that is intended to mislead others as to its truth\n (or, in the case of a public statement that one performs an\n action, its effectiveness).\n\n For the purpose of this rule:\n\n a) Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making that\n statement.\n\n b) Any conditional clause or other qualifier attached to a\n statement constitutes part of the statement; the nature of\n the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2215 (then 2149), depending on the context of the\nrest of the message.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5789 (Murphy, Zefram, Michael, Goethe), 22 October\n 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008'),(497142,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2186,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Victory','Victory',1227766571,'Rule 2186/2 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of\n players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\n While all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition,\n that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(497143,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2110,'Power changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy;','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1227766571,'Rule 2110/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Paradox\n\n A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of\n a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.\n\n Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a\n tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,\n the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this\n Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other\n tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy;\n disi.), 18 November 2008'),(496832,'rcs','00000001.00000806',2193,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1220488582,'Rule 2193/14 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred to by\n the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so described by\n the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster SHOULD\n assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on sentencing in that case.\n sentencing in that case.\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008'),(497282,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2226,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Linked Assignments','Linked Assignments',1228006444,'Rule 2226/0 (Power=1.5)\nLinked Assignments\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts assigns a player as judge of two or\n more judicial cases consecutively in the same announcement, that\n player only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules\n to the contrary notwithstanding. The CotC SHOULD NOT do this\n unless those cases are closely related in their subject matter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497283,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2164,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)','Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)',1228006444,'Rule 2164/3 (Power=1)\nRule 2164/2 (Power=1)\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. Such a recusal is with cause if and only\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497284,'rcs','00000001.00000904',2212,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)','Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)',1228006444,'Rule 2212/0 (Power=1.7)\nRule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(497210,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2203,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Hawkishness','Hawkishness',1227766571,'Rule 2203/0 (Power=1.5)\nHawkishness\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts, with the following values:\n\n * Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any inquiry case.\n\n * Hugging. Hugging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be\n assigned as judge of any equity case.\n\n * Hemming-and-Hawing (default).\n\n Changes to hawkishness are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497211,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2157,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1227766571,'Rule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members, or\n (unless the CotC is a member of the panel, the prior judge, or\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the\n Support of at least half the other members and the Support of\n the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support a majority action if the\n panel has made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By\n this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008'),(497212,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2158,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1227766571,'Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009'),(496923,'rcs','00000001.00000866',2178,'Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1225313961,'Rule 2178/2 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one\n of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its members, that the contract be\n public.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),\n 29 October 2008'),(496924,'rcs','00000001.00000867',1922,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)',1225314007,'Rule 1922/26 (Power=1)\nRule 1922/27 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from\n all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or\n the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to\n any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.\n in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496917,'rcs','00000001.00000861',2186,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Victory','Victory',1224728598,'Rule 2186/2 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of\n players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\n While all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition,\n that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496918,'rcs','00000001.00000862',2136,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008','Contests','Contests',1224728713,'Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n\n The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of more\n than one contest.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008'),(496764,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2205,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','Judicial Arguments and Evidence','Judicial Arguments and Evidence',1215386814,'Rule 2205/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Arguments and Evidence\n\n Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD\n present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)\n relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:\n\n 1) The initiator, when initiating the case.\n\n 2) For a criminal case, the defendant, during the pre-trial\n phase.\n\n 3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question,\n during the pre-trial phase.\n\n 4) The judge, when delivering judgement.\n\n Matters of legal interpretation SHOULD be classified as\n arguments; matters of fact SHOULD be classified as evidence.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(496765,'rcs','00000001.00000800',649,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1215386814,'Rule 649/27 (Power=1.5)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\n 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(496766,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1922,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)',1215386814,'Rule 1922/24 (Power=1)\nRule 1922/27 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or\n the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to\n any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.\n in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496767,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1367,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Degrees','Degrees',1215386814,'Rule 1367/11 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\n 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(496768,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 1742/14 (Power=1.5)\nRule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules. Any\n agreement made by one or more persons with the intention that it\n be binding on them and governed by the rules is a contract\n (unless it would automatically terminate as a contract).\n\n A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to\n it falls below the number of parties the rules require for the\n contract. If other rules do not specify such a number for a\n contract, then a contract requires at least two parties.\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(496769,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2197,'Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)','Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2197/1 (Power=2)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\n 2008'),(496770,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2198,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2198/1 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nMaking Contract Changes\n If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to\n it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using\n that mechanism.\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n Objection if, before the dependent action is resolved, no party\n blocks the change by announcement.\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008'),(496771,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2178,'Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),','Rule 2178/2 (Power=2)','Rule 2178/2 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2178/2 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2178/2 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one\n of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its members, that the contract be\n public.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\n 29 October 2008'),(496772,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2173,'Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2173/1 (Power=1)\nRule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible\n for keeping track of contracts.\n track of contracts.\n\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s report includes\n this information for each public contract.\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\n 2008'),(496773,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2191/2 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496774,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2145,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2145/5 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(496775,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2209,'Created by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,','Agoran Welcoming Committee','Agoran Welcoming Committee',1215386814,'Rule 2209/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Welcoming Committee\n\n The Greeter is an imposed office.\n\n While a partnership named \"Welcoming Committee\" exists, and its\n obligations include all of the following:\n\n a) Greet all new players.\n\n b) Engage in contact with new players to assist them.\n\n c) Engage in contact with new players to ensure a positive\n experience.\n\n then this office is imposed upon that partnership. Otherwise,\n this office is vacant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,\n Murphy), 29 June 2008'),(496776,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2174,'Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Aliens','Aliens',1215386814,'Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)\nAliens\n\n An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or\n more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an\n alien with one or more registered visas.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(496777,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2136,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2136/20 (Power=1)\nRule 2136/21 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n Any player CAN flip the contestmaster of a public contract\n without 3 objections, except if doing so would cause a player to\n be contestmaster of more than one contest, or it would flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly\n consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player\n intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this\n is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that\n contract.)\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008'),(496778,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2179,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2179/1 (Power=1)\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\nPoints\n\n restricted to players.\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008'),(496779,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2187,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008','Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2187/2 (Power=2)\nRule 2187/3 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008'),(496780,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2193,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1215386814,'Rule 2193/9 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008'),(496781,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2192,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1215386814,'Rule 2192/3 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of\n the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and\n SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster\n fulfills all of its duties.\n\n The Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one). This proposal counts as the Mad\n Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.\n\n[Cross-references (23 April 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * act on behalf of the monster to fulfill its duties (rule 2192)\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008'),(496782,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2200,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 2200/1 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\n\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name\n of \"Agora\" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any\n nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.\n\n A province is a protectorate that is a player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008'),(496783,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2135,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Advertising','Advertising',1215386814,'Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(496784,'rcs','00000001.00000800',402,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 402/24 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008'),(496785,'rcs','00000001.00000800',103,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 103/4 (Power=3)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(496786,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2184,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign communications','Foreign communications',1215386814,'Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(496787,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2148,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1215386814,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(496788,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not\nhave significance under the rules of Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[CFJ 1821 (called 4 December 2007): A nonsensical word does not\nconstitute a description of an action that could hypothetically be\nperformed on behalf of Agora.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(496789,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2189,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Extortion','Win by Extortion',1215386814,'Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Extortion\n\n Upon a player acting on behalf of Agora to award a win to one or\n more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Extortion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(496790,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1215386814,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(496791,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2147,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1215386814,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(496792,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2159,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1215386814,'Rule 2159/2 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(496793,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2206,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Foreign Trade','Foreign Trade',1215386814,'Rule 2206/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Trade\n\n A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a\n foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon\n as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the\n announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.\n\n The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt\n legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable\n foreign assets.\n\n Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign\n exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(496794,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2207,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Trade Embargo','Trade Embargo',1215386814,'Rule 2207/0 (Power=1)\nTrade Embargo\n\n A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its\n Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(496795,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 2105/3 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(496796,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1727,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1215386814,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known\n unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,\n until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\n BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Unbirthday is defined to\n be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,\n since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire\n days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(496797,'rcs','00000001.00000800',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael\nNorrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present\ntime.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(496798,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1215386814,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(496799,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1215386814,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\n[CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an\nobilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because \"Marvy\" is\ncurrently undefined.]\n\n[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not\nnecessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(496800,'rcs','00000001.00000801',106,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1215386887,'Rule 106/13 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008'),(496801,'rcs','00000001.00000802',478,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Fora','Fora',1218617946,'Rule 478/25 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by unambiguously\n specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Any\n action performed by sending a message is performed at the time\n date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496802,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2170,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5671 (Murphy, Pavrita), 12 August 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1218617946,'Rule 2170/2 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not\n to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those\n persons within Agora.\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead\n others as to the identity of its publisher.\n\n A public message\'s claim as to who published it is\n self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a\n challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has\n been issued within one month before its publication.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is\n the executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5671 (Murphy, Pavrita), 12 August 2008'),(496803,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2181,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5600 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1218617946,'Rule 2181/5 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.\n\n The Accountor\'s report includes a list of all classes of assets,\n and their backing documents and recordkeepors.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose\n backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5598 (Wooble; disi.), 29 June 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5600 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496804,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2154,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1218617946,'Rule 2154/13 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved.\n A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated during\n the first half of the nominating period and did not refuse,\n or who was nominated during the second half and accepted.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if\n there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em\n in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more\n consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran\n decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known\n as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start\n of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder. This\n requirement is waived if the office comes to have an\n active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496805,'rcs','00000001.00000802',1450,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5602 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1218617946,'Rule 1450/9 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Lest the entire proposal process fall under the control of a\n single entity, any change that would result in the same entity\n holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is\n canceled and does not occur, rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5602 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496806,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2156,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1218617946,'Rule 2156/7 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the\n following values and their numeric equivalents:\n\n Alpha - 8\n Beta - 5\n Gamma - 3\n Delta - 2\n Epsilon - 1 (default for first-class players and provinces)\n Savage - 0 (default for all other players)\n\n Changes to caste are secured.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496807,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2210,'Created by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','Caste Bootstrapping','Caste Bootstrapping',1218617946,'Rule 2210/1 (Power=2)\nCaste Bootstrapping\n\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting limit of an\n eligible voter on an ordinary decision whose voting period\n started (time T_s) before castes were defined (time T_c) is\n based on T_c rather than T_s. This rule repeals itself once\n the voting periods of all such decisions have ended.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496808,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2211,'Created by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','The Grand Poobah','The Grand Poobah',1218617946,'Rule 2211/1 (Power=2)\nThe Grand Poobah\n\n The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of castes.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to\n eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of\n each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order,\n at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet\n been chosen during the current procedure:\n\n 1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a\n player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling\n or exceeding the new caste:\n\n a) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha\n b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta\n c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma\n d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta\n\n 2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.\n\n b->c) While there are more than two Betas,\n flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma\n c->d) While there are more than three Gammas,\n flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta\n d->e) While there are more than four Deltas,\n flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496809,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2134,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1218617946,'Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default\n value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the\n remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496810,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2126,'Amended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008','Notes','Notes',1218617946,'Rule 2126/56 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008'),(496811,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2019,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1218617946,'Rule 2019/17 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent\n title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose which\n members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes\n to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either\n hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done\n so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to\n that case during this period. If the Justiciar has done so,\n then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including\n (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the\n Justiciar, if possible.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008'),(496812,'rcs','00000001.00000802',1504,'Amended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1218617946,'Rule 1504/28 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN, with\n 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a member \n of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies \n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document specifies a\n maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the\n maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours either\n destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer it to the Lost\n and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction or transfer per question on sentencing, even if\n sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into\n effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008'),(496813,'rcs','00000001.00000802',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1218617946,'Rule 2169/6 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby\n events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as,\n but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir\n contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly\n identify the set of parties to the contract.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the\n contract in question by announcement.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(496814,'rcs','00000001.00000802',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1218617946,'Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question\n is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned\n if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will\n make a better judgement if given a new opportunity\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior\n case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered\n open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge\n believes that the judge of the prior case will not make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5659 (Murphy), 12 August 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496815,'rcs','00000001.00000802',1922,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)',1218617946,'Rule 1922/25 (Power=1)\nRule 1922/27 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from\n all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or\n the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to\n any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.\n in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(496816,'rcs','00000001.00000802',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)',1218617946,'Rule 1742/16 (Power=1.5)\nRule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.\n\n Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not\n otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or\n more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and\n governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have\n at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a\n Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract, the only\n appropriate sentence is DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with\n respect to a previously- imposed Equity judgement.\n previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(497196,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1607,'Amended(19) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008','Rule 1607/18 (Power=2)','Rule 1607/18 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 1607/19 (Power=2)\nRule 1607/18 (Power=2)\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution\n of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the\n beginning of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal\ndistribution of either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008'),(497315,'rcs','00000001.00000921',1607,'Amended(19) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1228690241,'Rule 1607/19 (Power=2)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal\n Pool at any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the\n distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool\n since the beginning of that week.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal\ndistribution of either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008'),(497221,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1922,'Amended(28) by Proposal 5967 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)',1227766571,'Rule 1922/29 (Power=1)\nRule 1922/27 (Power=1)\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from\n all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar (whichever\n one gets around to it first) to any player who deregistered\n in a Writ of FAGE.\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5805 (Murphy, Zefram), 29 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5967 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497292,'rcs','00000001.00000908',1922,'Amended(29) by Proposal 6009 (Sgeo), 10 December 2008','Rule 1922/28 (Power=1)','Rule 1922/28 (Power=1)',1228363063,'Rule 1922/29 (Power=1)\nRule 1922/28 (Power=1)\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from\n all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any\n player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5805 (Murphy, Zefram), 29 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5967 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6009 (Sgeo), 10 December 2008'),(497222,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1367,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18','Degrees','Degrees',1227766571,'Rule 1367/12 (Power=1)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\n Degrees are generally awarded by proposals with adoption indices\n sufficiently high to award patent titles.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November\n 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18\n November 2008'),(497223,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2231,'Contract Law','Contract Law','Contract Law',1227766571,'Rule 2231/0 (Power=2)\nContract Law\n A category concerning binding agreements that can be adjudicated\n within this nomic.'),(497224,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1227766571,'Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.\n\n Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not\n otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or\n more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and\n governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have\n at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a\n manner of equity, if a player is found GUILTY of violating this\n Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract that has\n never been a partnership, the only appropriate sentence is\n DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with respect to a\n previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5663 (Murphy), 9 August 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(497159,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2170,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5741 (Murphy), 16 October 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1227766571,'Rule 2170/5 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not\n to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those\n persons within Agora.\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead\n others as to the identity of its publisher.\n\n A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname, including but\n not limited to a name that has generally been used to refer to\n another entity within the past three months.\n\n A public message\'s (possibly implicit) claim as to the identity\n of its publisher is self-ratifying, provided that the claim is\n neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, and no challenge of\n identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued\n within one month before its publication. Upon a judicial\n finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages\n (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those\n claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon\n as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet\n was a person during one or more time periods, which SHOULD\n correspond to general belief prior to that finding.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. (Upon a judicial finding that the Executor of a public\n message cannot otherwise be determined within reasonable effort,\n the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial\n declaration specifying the identity of that message\'s Executor.)\n The executor of an action performed by announcement is the\n executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5671 (Murphy, Pavrita), 12 August 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5716 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5717 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5741 (Murphy), 16 October 2008'),(497160,'rcs','00000001.00000900',754,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5834 (Goethe), 12 November 2008','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1227766571,'Rule 754/8 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning when used in any Rule of equal or lesser power, as\n do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by\n the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning. In\n determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term,\n definitions contained in lower-powered Rules, followed by\n definitions used in contracts or other Agoran legal\n documents, SHOULD be used for guidance.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without\nsurrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate\nanything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the\nURI.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI\nby default have no significance other than their functional role as\npart of the URI.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5834 (Goethe), 12 November 2008'),(497149,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1030,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1227766571,'Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(497150,'rcs','00000001.00000900',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1227766571,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February\n 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(497151,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1227766571,'Rule 1681/12 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(497152,'rcs','00000001.00000900',1051,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1227766571,'Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(497153,'rcs','00000001.00000900',869,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5973 (woggle), 25 November 2008','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1227766571,'Rule 869/27 (Power=2)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered. Changes to\n citizenship are secured.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A first-class person CAN register by announcing that e\n registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or\n requests permission to register.\n\n A second-class person CAN register with Agoran Consent.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5973 (woggle), 25 November 2008'),(406502,'rcs','00000001.00000650',2144,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1199304950,'Rule 2144/7 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\n If a registered partnership is not a public contract, it can be\n degregistered with Support.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(406503,'rcs','00000001.00000650',2178,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1199304950,'Rule 2178/1 (Power=1)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify the contract as a public\n contract by publishing its text with a notice of intent from the\n contract be a public contract. The notice of intent MUST\n consist of one or more of:\n\n (a) a clause in the contract identifying it as public;\n\n (b) a notice indicating unanimous consent of members that the\n contract be public;\n\n (c) a notice published without objection of its members, that\n the contract be public.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published by a person\n with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it\n forms, then it becomes public immediately upon becoming a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(406504,'rcs','00000001.00000651',2145,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Partnerships','Partnerships',1199305028,'Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(406505,'rcs','00000001.00000652',2175,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1199305151,'Rule 2175/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(406506,'rcs','00000001.00000653',2126,'Amended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1199305309,'Rule 2126/48 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Accountor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor\n (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and\n that player each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N, to a minimum\n of zero, where N >= 1.\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008'),(497324,'rcs','00000001.00000927',2228,'Created by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),','Rests','Rests',1229403948,'Rule 2228/0 (Power=2)\nRests\n\n Rests are a fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Conductor.\n The creation and destruction of Rests is secured with a power\n threshold of 1.7, a person generally CANNOT destroy rests except\n as permitted by Rules explicitly stating methods by which rests\n in particular CAN be destroyed.\n\n Ownership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons. If, in\n the absence of this restriction, a number (N) of Rests would be\n created in the ownership of a non-first-class person, then for\n each member of that person\'s basis, N Rests are created in that\n member\'s possession.\n\n A player CAN spend two Notes in order to destroy a Rest owned by\n a player e specifies.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008'),(497325,'rcs','00000001.00000927',2229,'Created by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),','Just Resting','Just Resting',1229403948,'Rule 2229/0 (Power=2)\nJust Resting\n\n Owning one or more Rests is a Losing Condition.\n\n While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend\n Notes except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence\n over any other rule.\n\n While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be\n deregistered by any player by announcement. A person who owns\n at least 6 Rests, or where every member of eir basis owns 6\n Rests, CANNOT register, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n A person who has one or more rests but is not a player is a\n Fugitive. The Herald\'s report shall include a list of all\n Fugitives and the number of Rests they possess. At the\n beginning of each month, half of each Fugitive\'s rests (rounded\n down) are destroyed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008'),(497327,'rcs','00000001.00000927',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1229403948,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * announce whether a Notice of Violation is valid (rule 2230)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)\n * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497328,'rcs','00000001.00000927',2230,'Amended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009','Rule 2230/0 (Power=2)','Rule 2230/0 (Power=2)',1229403948,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2230/0 (Power=2)\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the\n Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N\n is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that\n Crime.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n Neither a Ticket\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested if a Crime\n is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Ticket, any player CAN make it\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Ticket becomes\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is\n If a notice remains uncontested for four days, a number of Rests\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes\n of the violated Rule rounded up. If the notice becomes\n contested after four days, these Rests remain, but CAN be later\n destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009'),(406512,'rcs','00000001.00000659',1504,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1199920350,'Rule 1504/20 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008'),(406501,'rcs','00000001.00000649',2126,'Amended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1199304863,'Rule 2126/47 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor\n (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and\n that player each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N, to a minimum\n of zero, where N >= 1.\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008'),(406510,'rcs','00000001.00000657',1922,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1199305690,'Rule 1922/22 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(406511,'rcs','00000001.00000658',2166,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Assets','Assets',1199749690,'Rule 2166/2 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nBank upon creation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(497330,'rcs','00000001.00000927',2212,'Created by Proposal 5715 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Judicial Declarations','Judicial Declarations',1229403948,'Rule 2212/0 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Declarations\n\n A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by the\n rules in conjunction with a judgement is self-ratifying,\n provided that that judgement remains in effect. Such a\n judgement may be inappropriate due to the content of this\n declaration, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5715 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(497331,'rcs','00000001.00000928',2157,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1229665890,'Rule 2157/6 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members. By\n this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n The rules may specify other mechanisms by which the judicial\n panel CAN act.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008'),(497332,'rcs','00000001.00000928',911,'Amended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 911/24 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/24 (Power=1.7)',1229665890,'Rule 911/25 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/24 (Power=1.7)\n\n Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the\n prior judgement at the time it was delivered:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is\n rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the\n judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior\n question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be\n assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior\n case will not make a better judgement if given a new\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each\n member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating\n a valid and appropriate judgement to assign to the case -- only\n the first such published opinion for each member is used to\n determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD include arguments for\n eir choice of judgement. If, immediately after either all\n members have so published or the time limit for so publishing\n has ended, a majority of the members have opined for the same\n judgement, the panel acts to deliver the judgement in question.\n If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel\n acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. If the panel publishes a\n valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules,\n the requirement for individual members to publish individual\n opinions is waived.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497351,'rcs','00000001.00000935',2169,'Amended(11) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1230366250,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the operation of\n a particular contract. An equity case CAN be initiated by any\n party to the contract, by announcement which clearly identifies\n the contract and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly identify the\n set of parties to the contract.\n\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n measured as of the time the case was initiated; however, if the\n initiating message specifies a different time that falls within\n the week before the case was initiated, then that time is used\n instead.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 6006 (Murphy), 10 December 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497350,'rcs','00000001.00000935',1504,'Amended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009','Rule 1504/34 (Power=2)','Rule 1504/34 (Power=2)',1230366250,'Rule 1504/35 (Power=2)\nRule 1504/34 (Power=2)\n\n Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any\n first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an\n announcement calling for judgement on the circumstances\n surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a\n rules breach by a single entity (the Accused). The initiator\n and each member of the Accused\'s basis are unqualified to be\n assigned as judge of the case.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable\n doubt, that ALL of the following are true:\n (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified\n act;\n (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being\n initiated;\n (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal\n case, or punishment already applied through another\n uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act;\n (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the\n alleged act did not violate the specified rule;\n (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the\n breach without committing a different breach of equal or\n greater severity.\n\n * NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In\n delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of\n the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to\n be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to\n be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir\n possession due to the notice in question, the judge CAN and\n SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of\n Failure to Apologize.\n\n * SILENCE, a number of Rests, equal to the defined Class of the\n Crime or (if the breach is not a defined crime) the power of\n the breached Rule, rounded to the nearest integer with ties\n the breached Rule, are created in the possession of the Ninny.\n If the Ninny showed bad faith by contesting an\n obviously-correct notice or by obstructing the course of\n justice, the judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2\n Support.\n Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class\n greater than 14.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by\n announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation\n of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are\n still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN\n and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008\nAmended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,\n OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008\nAmended(34) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009'),(497349,'rcs','00000001.00000935',591,'Amended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009','Rule 591/29 (Power=1.7)','Rule 591/29 (Power=1.7)',1230366250,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nRule 591/29 (Power=1.7)\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular\n statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to\n including a statement that the answer to that question is yes,\n and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical\n not relevant to the game\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009'),(497348,'rcs','00000001.00000934',2206,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Foreign Trade','Foreign Trade',1230023172,'Rule 2206/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Trade\n\n A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a\n foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon\n as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the\n announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.\n\n The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt\n legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable\n foreign assets.\n\n Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign\n exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(497347,'rcs','00000001.00000934',2159,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1230023172,'Rule 2159/3 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora whose intended effect is\n to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate nomic.\n The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending rules\n of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n Initiating a protective decree is secured, and is INVALID unless\n the initiating instrument unambiguously specifies the target\n protectorate and the changes to be made to it.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497346,'rcs','00000001.00000934',1006,'Amended(27) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Offices','Offices',1230023172,'Rule 1006/27 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n An office is a role defined as such by the rules. Each office\n is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one\n player. An officer is the holder of an office, who may be\n referred to by the name of that office.\n\n An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule\n defining it. All others are elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497345,'rcs','00000001.00000934',2166,'Amended(9) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Assets','Assets',1230023172,'Rule 2166/9 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract\n (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because\n its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)\n defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That\n entity\'s report includes a list of all instances of that class\n and their owners. This portion of that entity\'s report is\n self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n A public class of assets is a class of assets whose backing\n document is a rule or a public contract. All others are\n private.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[CFJ 1910 (called 10 March 2008): When an existing entity is defined\nas an asset, the change of its owner from \"undefined\" to the Lost and\nFound Department [Bank at the time of CFJ 1910] counts as a transfer,\nand fails if the Lost and Found Department is outside of the class of\nobjects that can own the entity.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5974 (Murphy; disi.), 25 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497344,'rcs','00000001.00000934',2177,'Amended(9) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','The Senate','The Senate',1230023172,'Rule 2177/9 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered\n continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days. The set\n of all Senators is known as the Senate. The Registrar\'s report\n includes a list of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senator\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts\n until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session\n terminates 21 days after it was called. A Senator CAN terminate\n an emergency session without 3 Senator objections. Terminating\n an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor\'s report\n includes the dates when the most recent emergency session was\n called and terminated.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, a senator is a first-class player who is a member of\n the roll call. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of\n the most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n While a proposal is in filibuster, its quorum is the number of\n eligible voters plus one, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5944 (Taral, ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5945 (root), 15 November 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497343,'rcs','00000001.00000934',2186,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Victory','Victory',1230023172,'Rule 2186/3 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined\n as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a\n coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\n While all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition,\n that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(406508,'rcs','00000001.00000655',2169,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1199305546,'Rule 2169/3 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all\n the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit\n arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The\n pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to\n the contract in question by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(406509,'rcs','00000001.00000656',2166,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Assets','Assets',1199305632,'Rule 2166/2 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(497329,'rcs','00000001.00000927',1504,'Amended(34) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 1504/33 (Power=2)','Rule 1504/33 (Power=2)',1229403948,'Rule 1504/35 (Power=2)\nRule 1504/33 (Power=2)\n\n Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n Any first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an\n surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a\n rules breach by a single entity (the Accused). The initiator\n and each member of the Accused\'s basis are unqualified to be\n assigned as judge of the case.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable\n doubt, that ALL of the following are true:\n (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified\n act;\n (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being\n initiated;\n (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal\n case, or punishment already applied through another\n uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act;\n (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the\n alleged act did not violate the specified rule;\n (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the\n breach without committing a different breach of equal or\n greater severity.\n\n * NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In\n delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of\n the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to\n be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to\n be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir\n possession due to the notice in question, the judge CAN and\n SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of\n Failure to Apologize.\n\n * SILENCE, a number of Rests, equal to the defined Class of the\n Crime or (if the breach is not a defined crime) the power of\n the breached Rule, rounded to the nearest integer with ties\n the breached Rule, are created in the possession of the Ninny.\n If the Ninny showed bad faith by contesting an\n obviously-correct notice or by obstructing the course of\n justice, the judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2\n Support.\n Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class\n greater than 14.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by\n announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation\n of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are\n still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN\n and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008\nAmended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,\n OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008\nAmended(34) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497383,'rcs','00000001.00000954',2202,'Amended(1) by Proposal 6048 (Wooble), 13 January 2009','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',1232361583,'Rule 2202/1 (Power=3)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n Ratification Without Objection CANNOT cause the repeal,\n amendment, enactment, or mutation of any Rule, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6048 (Wooble), 13 January 2009'),(406513,'rcs','00000001.00000660',1769,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Holidays','Holidays',1199986326,'Rule 1769/5 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1859 (called 2 January 2008): Rule 1769 does not cause extension\nof voting periods that start before a holiday and end during it.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406514,'rcs','00000001.00000661',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1199991473,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406515,'rcs','00000001.00000661',1742,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1199991473,'Rule 1742/11 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(406516,'rcs','00000001.00000662',2149,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1199996851,'Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes\n that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2149 can occur\nwithout any intent to misdirect.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406517,'rcs','00000001.00000663',1504,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1199997721,'Rule 1504/20 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008'),(406518,'rcs','00000001.00000664',683,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1200336111,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more\nvotes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the\nmaking of a false statement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406519,'rcs','00000001.00000664',2126,'Amended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1200336111,'Rule 2126/48 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Accountor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor\n (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and\n that player each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N, to a minimum\n of zero, where N >= 1.\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJ 1854 (called 24 December 2007): It is not possible to spend VCs\nthat one does not own.]\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008'),(406521,'rcs','00000001.00000666',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1200347379,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406522,'rcs','00000001.00000667',1922,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1200367147,'Rule 1922/22 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(406523,'rcs','00000001.00000668',2019,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1200382057,'Rule 2019/10 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of the month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the remainder of that month. If there\n are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL\n randomly choose which members of the larger set take part in the\n assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant office by announcement, unless e is\n prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n proposal in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary proposal in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): Once assigned, a prerogative stays\nassigned until it is reassigned to a different person.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(497384,'rcs','00000001.00000955',2179,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009','Points','Points',1232361642,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2179/4 (Power=2)\n For each point axis:\n\n a) Points is a fixed currency.\n\n b) A player\'s coordinate (syn. score) is the\n number of points e owns.\n\n There are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi,\n where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.\n\n Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is\n secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the\n same power threshold.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009\n\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n not \'none\'.\n\n The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n within the past seven days.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6037 (Goethe), 13 January 2009\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009'),(497386,'rcs','00000001.00000956',1504,'Amended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009','Rule 1504/34 (Power=2)','Rule 1504/34 (Power=2)',1232741845,'Rule 1504/35 (Power=2)\nRule 1504/34 (Power=2)\n\n Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any\n first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an\n announcement calling for judgement on the circumstances\n surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a\n rules breach by a single entity (the Accused). The initiator\n and each member of the Accused\'s basis are unqualified to be\n assigned as judge of the case.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable\n doubt, that ALL of the following are true:\n (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified\n act;\n (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being\n initiated;\n (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal\n case, or punishment already applied through another\n uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act;\n (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the\n alleged act did not violate the specified rule;\n (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the\n breach without committing a different breach of equal or\n greater severity.\n\n * NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In\n delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of\n the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to\n be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to\n be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir\n possession due to the notice in question, the judge CAN and\n SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of\n Failure to Apologize.\n\n * SILENCE, a number of Rests, equal to the defined Class of the\n Crime or (if the breach is not a defined crime) the power of\n the breached Rule, rounded to the nearest integer with ties\n the breached Rule, are created in the possession of the Ninny.\n If the Ninny showed bad faith by contesting an obviously-\n correct notice or by obstructing the course of justice, the\n judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2 Support.\n Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class\n greater than 14.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by\n announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation\n of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are\n still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN\n and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008\nAmended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,\n OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008\nAmended(34) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009'),(497385,'rcs','00000001.00000955',2232,'Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008','Contest Axes','Contest Axes',1232361642,'Rule 2232/0 (Power=2)\nContest Axes\n\n Each contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}.\n\n An axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows,\n provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of\n multiple contests sharing an axis:\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its\n axes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008'),(497389,'rcs','00000001.00000958',1681,'Amended(15) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1232773187,'Rule 1681/15 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules\n are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, committee assignments (if any),\n title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, rules are assigned to the same category and\n presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain\n all the information required to be in the SLR, and any\n historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is modified in any way (including a power or\n title change), the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by\n adding a historical annotation, which MUST include:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497388,'rcs','00000001.00000958',2141,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1232773187,'Rule 2141/3 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are\n strictly ordered.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n Every rule is assigned to a number of committees (possibly\n zero). For the purposes of rules governing modification of\n instruments, the text, power, ID number, title, and committee\n assignments (if any) of a rule are all substantive aspects of\n the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497387,'rcs','00000001.00000957',2186,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6052 (Murphy), 23 January 2009','Victory','Victory',1232772347,'Rule 2186/4 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined\n as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a\n coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\n While a player is the only active first-class player not to\n satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning\n Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\n[Cross-references (9 January 2008): list of Winning Conditions:\n * Clout (rule 2134)\n * Dictatorship (rule 2223)\n * High Score (rule 2187)\n * Legislation (rule 2188)\n * Musicianship (rule 2126)\n * Paradox (rule 2110)\n * Renaissance (rule 2199)\n * Solitude (rule 2186)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6052 (Murphy), 23 January 2009'),(497407,'rcs','00000001.00000968',2198,'Amended(4) by cleaning, 12 February 2009','Making Contract Changes','Making Contract Changes',1234503550,'Rule 2198/4 (Power=2)\nMaking Contract Changes\n\n Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a\n mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, then any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5677 (ihope; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008\nAmended(4) by cleaning, 12 February 2009'),(497406,'rcs','00000001.00000968',106,'Amended(16) by cleaning, 12 February 2009','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1234503550,'Rule 106/16 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The author (syn.\n proposer) of a proposal is the player who submitted it. The\n author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by\n announcement.\n\n A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a\n Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere. Removing\n a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an\n Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.\n\n If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active\n player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so\n Without 3 Objections.\n\n A co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author)\n unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was\n submitted.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(16) by cleaning, 12 February 2009'),(497405,'rcs','00000001.00000967',2178,'Amended(5) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1233866255,'Rule 2178/5 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are\n private.\n\n A party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least\n one of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its parties, that the contract be\n public.\n\n (d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication,\n contains a clause or indication that the contract is a\n pledge.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do\n not become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),\n 29 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497404,'rcs','00000001.00000967',2198,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008','Making Contract Changes','Making Contract Changes',1233866255,'Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nMaking Contract Changes\n\n Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a\n mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5677 (ihope; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008'),(497403,'rcs','00000001.00000967',1681,'Amended(16) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1233866255,'Rule 1681/16 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules\n are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, committee assignments (if any),\n title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, rules are assigned to the same category and\n presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain\n all the information required to be in the SLR, and any\n historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6019 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497402,'rcs','00000001.00000966',2228,'Amended(2) by Proposal 6066 (comex, Goethe; disi.), 4 February 2009','Rests','Rests',1233864856,'Rule 2228/2 (Power=2)\nRests\n\n Rests are a fixed asset. The creation and destruction of Rests\n is secured with a power threshold of 1.7, a person generally\n CANNOT destroy rests except as permitted by Rules explicitly\n stating methods by which rests in particular CAN be destroyed.\n\n The Insulator is an office, and the recordkeepor of Rests.\n\n Ownership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons. If, in\n the absence of this restriction, a number (N) of Rests would be\n created in the ownership of a non-first-class person, then for\n each member of that person\'s basis, N Rests are created in that\n member\'s possession.\n\n A player CAN spend two Notes in order to destroy a Rest owned by\n a player e specifies.\n\n A first-class player CAN create Rests in eir own possession by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6060 (Wooble, comex, Goethe), 4 February 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6066 (comex, Goethe; disi.), 4 February 2009'),(497401,'rcs','00000001.00000965',2230,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009','Notices of Violation','Notices of Violation',1233864693,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2)\nNotices of Violation\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the\n Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N\n is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that\n Crime.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is\n published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN\n cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by\n announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests\n are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes\n Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by\n judicial processes as described elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009'),(497400,'rcs','00000001.00000964',2136,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009','Contests','Contests',1233864320,'Rule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n not \'none\'.\n\n The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n within the past seven days.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6037 (Goethe), 13 January 2009\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009'),(497399,'rcs','00000001.00000964',2179,'Amended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009','Points','Points',1233864320,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\n\n For each point axis:\n\n a) Points is a fixed currency.\n\n b) A player\'s coordinate (syn. score) is the\n number of points e owns.\n\n There are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi,\n where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.\n\n Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is\n secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the\n same power threshold.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n transferred this way to any one player, nor from any one player,\n per week.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009'),(497398,'rcs','00000001.00000963',2228,'Amended(1) by Proposal 6060 (Wooble, comex, Goethe), 4 February 2009','Rests','Rests',1233864175,'Rule 2228/1 (Power=2)\nRests\n\n Rests are a fixed asset, whose recordkeepor is the Conductor.\n The creation and destruction of Rests is secured with a power\n threshold of 1.7, a person generally CANNOT destroy rests except\n as permitted by Rules explicitly stating methods by which rests\n in particular CAN be destroyed.\n\n Ownership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons. If, in\n the absence of this restriction, a number (N) of Rests would be\n created in the ownership of a non-first-class person, then for\n each member of that person\'s basis, N Rests are created in that\n member\'s possession.\n\n A player CAN spend two Notes in order to destroy a Rest owned by\n a player e specifies.\n\n A first-class player CAN create Rests in eir own possession by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6060 (Wooble, comex, Goethe), 4 February 2009'),(497397,'rcs','00000001.00000962',1586,'Amended(6) by cleaning, 26 January 2009','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1233017875,'Rule 1586/6 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to\n define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same\n entity. A document-defined entity\'s name CANNOT be changed to\n be the same as another document-defined entity\'s name.\n\n A document referring to an entity by name refers to the entity\n that had that name when the document first came to include that\n reference, even if the entity\'s name has since changed.\n\n If the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they\n still define that entity but with different properties, then\n that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever\n extent is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5836 (Murphy), 12 October 2008\nAmended(6) by cleaning, 26 January 2009'),(497396,'rcs','00000001.00000961',2230,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009','Rule 2230/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2230/3 (Power=2)',1232773584,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2230/3 (Power=2)\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the\n Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N\n is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that\n Crime.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is\n published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN\n cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by\n announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests\n are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If the notice becomes\n contested after four days, these Rests remain, but CAN be later\n destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009'),(497395,'rcs','00000001.00000960',2230,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009','Rule 2230/2 (Power=2)','Rule 2230/2 (Power=2)',1232773525,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2230/2 (Power=2)\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the\n Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N\n is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that\n Crime.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n Neither a Ticket\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n publication of an Uncontested Ticket, any player CAN make it\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Ticket becomes\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is\n published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN\n cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by\n announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests\n are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If the notice becomes\n contested after four days, these Rests remain, but CAN be later\n destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009'),(497394,'rcs','00000001.00000959',1504,'Amended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1232773267,'Rule 1504/35 (Power=2)\nCriminal Cases\n\n Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any\n first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an\n announcement calling for judgement on the circumstances\n surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a\n rules breach by a single entity (the Accused). The initiator\n and each member of the Accused\'s basis are unqualified to be\n assigned as judge of the case.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable\n doubt, that ALL of the following are true:\n (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified\n act;\n (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being\n initiated;\n (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal\n case, or punishment already applied through another\n uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act;\n (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the\n alleged act did not violate the specified rule;\n (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the\n breach without committing a different breach of equal or\n greater severity.\n\n * NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In\n delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of\n the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to\n be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to\n be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir\n possession due to the notice in question, the judge CAN and\n SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of\n Failure to Apologize.\n\n * SILENCE, a number of Rests, equal to the defined Class of the\n Crime or (if the breach is not a defined crime) the power of\n the breached Rule, rounded to the nearest integer with ties\n broken by rounding up, are created in the possession of the\n Ninny. The judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2\n Support, and SHOULD attempt to do so if e believes the Ninny\n showed bad faith by contesting an obviously-correct notice or\n by obstructing the course of justice.\n\n Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class\n greater than 14.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by\n announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation\n of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are\n still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN\n and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008\nAmended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,\n OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008\nAmended(34) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009'),(497393,'rcs','00000001.00000958',2173,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October','The Notary','The Notary',1232773187,'Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5628 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008'),(497391,'rcs','00000001.00000958',2235,'Created by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009','Committee Rejection','Committee Rejection',1232773187,'Rule 2235/0 (Power=3)\nCommittee Rejection\n\n If a proposal would amend (whether directly or indirectly) a\n rule assigned to a committee, and at least half the members of\n that committee (measured at the start of its voting period) who\n voted on that proposal cast more votes AGAINST it than FOR it,\n then it is entirely without effect, even if adopted.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497392,'rcs','00000001.00000958',2237,'Created by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009','Subsidized Contracts','Subsidized Contracts',1232773187,'Rule 2237/0 (Power=2)\nSubsidized Contracts\n\n Subsidy is a public contract switch with values Unsubsidized\n (default) and Subsidized.\n\n Liaison is a subsidized contract switch with values null and all\n roles defined by that contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497390,'rcs','00000001.00000958',2236,'Created by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009','Committee Membership','Committee Membership',1232773187,'Rule 2236/0 (Power=2)\nCommittee Membership\n\n The following committees exist, with the following charter\n positions:\n\n a) Committee on Rules (Rulekeepor, Promotor, Assessor, Grand\n Poobah, Speaker, Anarchist)\n\n b) Committee on Administration (all high-priority officers)\n\n c) Committee on the Judiciary (Clerk of the Courts, all\n first-class players whose judicial rank is Supreme and whose\n posture is standing or sitting)\n\n d) Committee on Crime (Justiciar, all first-class players whose\n hawkishness is hanging and whose posture is standing or\n sitting)\n\n d) Committee on Finance (Accountor, all recordkeepors of\n rule-backed assets)\n\n e) Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Notary, all\n partnerships, Liaison of each subsidized contract)\n\n f) Committee on Indian Affairs (Scorekeepor, all contestmasters)\n\n g) Committee on Foreign Relations (Speaker, Ambassador, all\n Embassies)\n\n While an active player holds one or more charter positions for a\n committee, e is a charter member of that committee. When a\n charter member of a committee ceases to hold any charter\n positions for that committee, or ceases to be an active player,\n e ceases to be a member of that committee.\n\n While a committee\'s number of charter members (CM) is less than\n five, a non-member CAN spend any 5-CM of eir Notes forming\n consecutive tones of a pentatonic scale to become a non-charter\n member of that committee. While a committee\'s number of members\n is more than five, its non-charter member that has been one for\n the longest continuous period of time ceases to be a member.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the membership of each committee.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(406520,'rcs','00000001.00000665',1504,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1200340692,'Rule 1504/20 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJ 1857a (called 10 January 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008'),(406578,'rcs','00000001.00000693',2184,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign communications','Foreign communications',1201884467,'Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\n[CFJ 1879 (called 19 January 2008): Canada is not a nomic, because its\nprimary purpose is not enjoyment.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406579,'rcs','00000001.00000694',649,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1201885496,'Rule 649/26 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008'),(406580,'rcs','00000001.00000695',107,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1201885598,'Rule 107/7 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days,\n unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008'),(406581,'rcs','00000001.00000696',2160,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1201885683,'Rule 2160/2 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular position (deputise for that position) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that position, by virtue of\n holding that position, to perform the action (or, if the\n position is vacant, would so require if the position were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that position for the\n purposes of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the position.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008'),(406582,'rcs','00000001.00000697',2194,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5417 (Murphy; disi.), 30 January 2008','Notes','Notes',1201885880,'Rule 2194/1 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one weekly report during that week gains an E\n Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at\n least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb\n Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (22 January 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2194)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5417 (Murphy; disi.), 30 January 2008'),(406583,'rcs','00000001.00000698',2149,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1201968244,'Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes\n that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2149 can occur\nwithout any intent to misdirect.]\n\n[CFJ 1887 (called 30 January 2008): Publicly making the statement\n\"This statement is a lie.\" would most likely be a violation of rule\n2149, because it is logically indeterminate and so making it would not\nbe telling the truth, and its logical indeterminacy would be\nunderstood by any reasonable player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406584,'rcs','00000001.00000699',1742,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1202148223,'Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008'),(406585,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1202148250,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406586,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2194,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5417 (Murphy; disi.), 30 January 2008','Notes','Notes',1202148250,'Rule 2194/1 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one weekly report during that week gains an E\n Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at\n least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb\n Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (22 January 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2194)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5417 (Murphy; disi.), 30 January 2008'),(406524,'rcs','00000001.00000668',1504,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1200382057,'Rule 1504/20 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008'),(406525,'rcs','00000001.00000669',1742,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1200438649,'Rule 1742/11 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(497377,'rcs','00000001.00000948',2179,'Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008','Points','Points',1232361095,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2179/4 (Power=2)\n For each point axis:\n\n a) Points is a fixed currency.\n\n b) A player\'s coordinate (syn. score) is the\n number of points e owns.\n\n There are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi,\n where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.\n\n Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is\n secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the\n same power threshold.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009\n\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\nRule 2136/27 (Power=2)\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'.\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n within the past seven days.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6037 (Goethe), 13 January 2009\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009\n\n\nRule 2232/0 (Power=2)\nContest Axes\n\n Each contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}.\n\n An axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows,\n provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of\n multiple contests sharing an axis:\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its\n axes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (497376,'rcs','00000001.00000947',2230,'Amended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009','Rule 2230/1 (Power=2)','Rule 2230/1 (Power=2)',1232361043,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2230/1 (Power=2)\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the\n Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N\n is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that\n Crime.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n Neither a Ticket\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n publication of an Uncontested Ticket, any player CAN make it\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Ticket becomes\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is\n If a notice remains uncontested for four days, a number of Rests\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes\n of the violated Rule rounded up. If the notice becomes\n contested after four days, these Rests remain, but CAN be later\n destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009'),(497381,'rcs','00000001.00000952',1023,'Amended(24) by Proposal 6046 (comex), 13 January 2009','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1232361392,'Rule 1023/24 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 6046 (comex), 13 January 2009'),(497382,'rcs','00000001.00000953',649,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6047 (comex), 13 January 2009','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1232361490,'Rule 649/28 (Power=1.5)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n While a Patent Title has been awarded to (and not revoked from)\n an entity, that entity is said to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February\n 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6047 (comex), 13 January 2009'),(497380,'rcs','00000001.00000951',2158,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1232361294,'Rule 2158/6 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009'),(497352,'rcs','00000001.00000935',911,'Amended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1230366250,'Rule 911/25 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s\n purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that\n has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the\n judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being\n questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the\n prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this rule is used to refer\n to the circumstances of the prior assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the\n prior judgement at the time it was delivered:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is\n rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the\n judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior\n question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be\n assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior\n case will not make a better judgement if given a new\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each\n member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating\n a valid and appropriate judgement to assign to the case -- only\n the first such published opinion for each member is used to\n determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD include arguments for\n eir choice of judgement. If, immediately after either all\n members have so published or the time limit for so publishing\n has ended, a majority of the members have opined for the same\n judgement, the panel acts to deliver the judgement in question.\n If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel\n acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. If the panel publishes a\n valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules,\n the requirement for individual members to publish individual\n opinions is waived.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(406526,'rcs','00000001.00000670',2145,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Partnerships','Partnerships',1200449985,'Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(406527,'rcs','00000001.00000671',2184,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign communications','Foreign communications',1200515123,'Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406528,'rcs','00000001.00000672',2147,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1200515280,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(406529,'rcs','00000001.00000672',2159,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1200515280,'Rule 2159/2 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(406530,'rcs','00000001.00000673',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1200515678,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406531,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2186,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Victory','Victory',1200517545,'Rule 2186/0 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406532,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2110,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1200517545,'Rule 2110/4 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n Upon a judicial finding that the possibility or legality of a\n rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) is UNDECIDABLE, the initiator satisfies the Winning\n Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406533,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2134,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1200517545,'Rule 2134/3 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary proposal distributed at that time would exceed\n the combined voting limits of all other players on that\n proposal, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition\n of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP, and\n no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder\n of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that\n each player\'s EVLOP is set based on eir VVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406534,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2188,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Proposal','Win by Proposal',1200517545,'Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Proposal\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406535,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2190,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Crime Doesn\'t Pay','Crime Doesn\'t Pay',1200517545,'Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406536,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2179,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Points','Points',1200517545,'Rule 2179/1 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * announce yellow VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406537,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2187,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1200517545,'Rule 2187/0 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s score is set to 0.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406538,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1200517545,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not\nhave significance under the rules of Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[CFJ 1821 (called 4 December 2007): A nonsensical word does not\nconstitute a description of an action that could hypothetically be\nperformed on behalf of Agora.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(406539,'rcs','00000001.00000674',2189,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Extortion','Win by Extortion',1200517545,'Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Extortion\n\n Upon a player acting on behalf of Agora to award a win to one or\n more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Extortion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406540,'rcs','00000001.00000675',2191,'Created by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Pledges','Pledges',1200517767,'Rule 2191/0 (Power=1.5)\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. The minimum\n number of parties for a pledge is one.\n\n A pledge CAN be modified or terminated by any party without\n objection.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406541,'rcs','00000001.00000676',2193,'Created by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1200518931,'Rule 2193/0 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406542,'rcs','00000001.00000676',2192,'Created by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1200518931,'Rule 2192/0 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster.\n\n At least once each week, the Mad Scientist SHALL:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one).\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406543,'rcs','00000001.00000677',2136,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Contests','Contests',1200519135,'Rule 2136/17 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A first-class player who is a member of an existing public\n contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as\n the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not\n the contestmaster of another contest. Another first-class\n player who is a member may replace the current contestmaster as\n the sole contestmaster without 3 objections, but only as\n explicitly described in the contest regulations and provided e\n is not the contestmaster of another contest.\n\n The minimum number of parties for a contest is one. Any player\n may make a contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.\n Players SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a\n contest based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406544,'rcs','00000001.00000678',2144,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1200519248,'Rule 2144/8 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(406545,'rcs','00000001.00000680',1742,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1200519699,'Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008'),(406546,'rcs','00000001.00000680',2178,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1200519699,'Rule 2178/2 (Power=1.5)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one\n of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its members, that the contract be\n public.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008'),(406547,'rcs','00000001.00000681',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1200521104,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406548,'rcs','00000001.00000681',2138,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1200521104,'Rule 2138/3 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(406549,'rcs','00000001.00000681',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1200521104,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): if Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406550,'rcs','00000001.00000681',2126,'Amended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1200521104,'Rule 2126/49 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings\n are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit a report within a\n time limit.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2126)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008'),(406551,'rcs','00000001.00000681',2194,'Created by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008','Notes','Notes',1200521104,'Rule 2194/0 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir proposals that were adopted during that week,\n and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate proposals\n that were rejected during that week with VI >= AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one weekly report during that week gains an E\n Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at\n least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb\n Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2194)\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2195)\n * convert rests to notes (rule 2195)\n * trigger repeal of rests (rule 2195)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008'),(406552,'rcs','00000001.00000681',2195,'Created by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008','Rests','Rests',1200521104,'Rule 2195/0 (Power=2)\nRests\n\n Rests are a fixed currency. Ownership of Rests is restricted\n to players. Changes to Rest holdings are secured.\n\n The Conductor is the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Whenever a player possesses a Rest, the Conductor CAN destroy\n it and award a Note of random pitch to that player, and SHALL\n do so as soon as possible.\n\n Upon a correct announcement by the Conductor that no player\n possesses a Rest, this rule is repealed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008'),(406553,'rcs','00000001.00000681',991,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1200521104,'Rule 991/10 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406554,'rcs','00000001.00000681',1504,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1200521104,'Rule 1504/21 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.\n When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of\n eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008'),(406555,'rcs','00000001.00000681',649,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1200521104,'Rule 649/25 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406556,'rcs','00000001.00000681',2179,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Points','Points',1200521104,'Rule 2179/1 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(406557,'rcs','00000001.00000682',2148,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1200521226,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406558,'rcs','00000001.00000683',2019,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1200523795,'Rule 2019/10 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of the month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the remainder of that month. If there\n are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL\n randomly choose which members of the larger set take part in the\n assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant office by announcement, unless e is\n prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n proposal in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary proposal in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406559,'rcs','00000001.00000684',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1200549064,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406560,'rcs','00000001.00000685',649,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1200586901,'Rule 649/25 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1862 (called 10 January 2008): If a person who bears a patent\ntitle ceases to be a person, e ceases to bear the title as a patent\ntitle, though it may still exist as something other than a patent\ntitle.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406561,'rcs','00000001.00000686',2158,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1200697206,'Rule 2158/2 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL assign an appropriate\n judgement to it as soon as possible. A judgement is valid\n and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. If more than\n one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between\n them is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has the same judge assigned to it, continuously for one week,\n the Clerk of the Courts CAN recuse that judge with cause by\n announcement. When these conditions have all held continuously\n for two weeks, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL so recuse that\n judge as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406562,'rcs','00000001.00000687',2145,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Partnerships','Partnerships',1200933097,'Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(406563,'rcs','00000001.00000688',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1200968552,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): A human is not a nomic.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406564,'rcs','00000001.00000688',2159,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1200968552,'Rule 2159/2 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(406565,'rcs','00000001.00000689',1006,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Offices','Offices',1201019189,'Rule 1006/23 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(406566,'rcs','00000001.00000689',2154,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1201019189,'Rule 2154/5 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an elected office, thus removing any previous holder\n from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided that the nominee\n consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is\n made.\n\n If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as\n above, then any other active player may be nominated for the\n position with eir own consent by announcement, during the\n minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for\n Agoran Consent.\n\n If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting\n nominee, then officeholding cannot be changed by means of this\n Agoran consent (even if consent was achieved), and the IADoP\n SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to\n determine the new officeholder. Until this Agoran decision is\n resolved, the office cannot change hands by the mechanism of\n this rule.\n\n In the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, the\n valid options are the nominees, quorum is the lesser of three\n and the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players,\n and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving\n the decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from the set of\n nominees which each received the largest number of votes; this\n chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the\n valid notice.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt\n to change the holder of that office with Agoran consent was made\n during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such\n attempt in the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if\n consent is achieved. These requirements are waived if another\n player makes such a change during the following quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(406567,'rcs','00000001.00000689',2019,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1201019189,'Rule 2019/11 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of the month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the remainder of that month. If there\n are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL\n randomly choose which members of the larger set take part in the\n assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n proposal in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary proposal in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(406568,'rcs','00000001.00000689',103,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1201019189,'Rule 103/4 (Power=3)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(406569,'rcs','00000001.00000690',1023,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1201019368,'Rule 1023/23 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(406570,'rcs','00000001.00000690',2019,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1201019368,'Rule 2019/12 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the upcoming month. If there are more\n members in one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose\n which members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n proposal in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary proposal in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(406571,'rcs','00000001.00000691',2194,'Created by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008','Notes','Notes',1201019631,'Rule 2194/0 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir proposals that were adopted during that week,\n and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate proposals\n that were rejected during that week with VI >= AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one weekly report during that week gains an E\n Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at\n least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb\n Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (22 January 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2194)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008'),(406572,'rcs','00000001.00000692',1742,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1201112090,'Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008'),(406573,'rcs','00000001.00000692',2191,'Created by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Pledges','Pledges',1201112090,'Rule 2191/0 (Power=1.5)\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. The minimum\n number of parties for a pledge is one.\n\n A pledge CAN be modified or terminated by any party without\n objection.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be\na party to a pledge which has exactly one party by announcement, even\nif the text of pledge explicitly permits this.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(406574,'rcs','00000001.00000692',2180,'Created by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Locations','Locations',1201112090,'Rule 2180/0 (Power=1)\nLocations\n\n A location is a public contract that describes itself as a\n location. A person who becomes a party to a location is said to\n move to that location. A person who is a party to a location is\n said to be in that location. A person who ceases to be a party\n to a location is said to leave that location.\n\n A person cannot be in more than a single location at one time.\n A person who moves to a location automatically leaves any\n location e is already in. Whenever a person\'s location does not\n permit em to leave it, e CANNOT move to any other location.\n\n The minimum number of parties for a location is zero.\n\n[CFJ 1877 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be\na party to a location which has exactly one party by announcement,\neven if the text of the location explicitly permits this.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(406575,'rcs','00000001.00000693',478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1201884467,'Rule 478/22 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007'),(406576,'rcs','00000001.00000693',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1201884467,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406577,'rcs','00000001.00000693',106,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1201884467,'Rule 106/10 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007'),(497375,'rcs','00000001.00000946',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1231558630,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (9 January 2009): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(497374,'rcs','00000001.00000945',2186,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Victory','Victory',1231556336,'Rule 2186/3 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined\n as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a\n coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\n While all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition,\n that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\n[Cross-references (9 January 2008): list of Winning Conditions:\n * Clout (rule 2134)\n * Dictatorship (rule 2223)\n * High Score (rule 2187)\n * Legislation (rule 2188)\n * Musicianship (rule 2126)\n * Paradox (rule 2110)\n * Renaissance (rule 2199)\n * Solitude (rule 2186)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497358,'rcs','00000001.00000936',2237,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October','Subsidized Contracts','Subsidized Contracts',1230366672,'Rule 2237/0 (Power=2)\nSubsidized Contracts\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5628 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008'),(497359,'rcs','00000001.00000937',1681,'Amended(14) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1230367090,'Rule 1681/14 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules\n are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, rules are assigned to the same category and\n presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain\n all the information required to be in the SLR, and any\n historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is modified in any way (including a power or\n title change), the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by\n adding a historical annotation, which MUST include:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497360,'rcs','00000001.00000937',1750,'Amended(2) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',1230367090,'Rule 1750/2 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February\n is known as Read the Ruleset Week. During this time, Agorans\n SHOULD read the ruleset.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497361,'rcs','00000001.00000937',2200,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1230367090,'Rule 2200/3 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\n\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic other than this one, even if it has\n the same name as this one.\n\n A province is a protectorate that is a player.\n\n An embassy is a registered partnership designated as\n representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and\n the rules of that nomic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5968 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497362,'rcs','00000001.00000937',2135,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Advertising','Advertising',1230367090,'Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(497363,'rcs','00000001.00000937',402,'Amended(26) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1230367090,'Rule 402/26 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The office of Speaker is held by the active player who has borne\n the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with\n ties broken in favor of the player who has been registered the\n longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497364,'rcs','00000001.00000937',103,'Amended(5) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1230367090,'Rule 103/5 (Power=1)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is an imposed office, and the figurehead of Agora,\n embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign\n nomics operate on the Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nPower changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497365,'rcs','00000001.00000937',2148,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1230367090,'Rule 2148/3 (Power=1)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the\n ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador.\n If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in\n such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497366,'rcs','00000001.00000937',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1230367090,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(497367,'rcs','00000001.00000938',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1231555329,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (9 January 2009): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(497368,'rcs','00000001.00000939',2124,'Amended(10) by Proposal 6027 (Elysion), 8 January 2009','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1231555467,'Rule 2124/10 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is\n equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of\n a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of\n players to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then\n it has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N supporters, then it\n has N or more supporters; and\n\n (3) if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then\n the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or\n the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\n For the purposes of any determination defined by this rule,\n objections shall always be considered withdrawn if they were\n made prior to the announcement of intent to perform the action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21\n February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 6027 (Elysion), 8 January 2009'),(497369,'rcs','00000001.00000940',101,'Amended(11) by Proposal 6028 (Murphy), 8 January 2009','The Rights of Agorans','The Rights of Agorans',1231555547,'Rule 101/11 (Power=3)\nThe Rights of Agorans\n\n WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a\n game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must\n balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,\n BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or\n binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person\'s\n rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and\n legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over\n any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights\n contained herein.\n\n i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the\n ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or\n regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of\n changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules\n explicitly or implicitly permit it.\n\n ii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n v. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction. However, this\n right is not violated by replacing part or all of a\n penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when\n the rules governing penalties are amended.\n\n vii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5773 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 6028 (Murphy), 8 January 2009'),(497370,'rcs','00000001.00000941',2143,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6030 (Murphy; disi.), 8 January 2009','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1231555707,'Rule 2143/4 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,\n and the publication of all such information is part of that\n office\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each month. If any information is defined\n by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then\n the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such\n information, and the publication of all such information is\n part of that office\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6030 (Murphy; disi.), 8 January 2009'),(497371,'rcs','00000001.00000943',2148,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1231555964,'Rule 2148/3 (Power=1)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the\n ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador.\n If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in\n such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497372,'rcs','00000001.00000943',2147,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1231555964,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(497373,'rcs','00000001.00000944',2186,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Victory','Victory',1231556195,'Rule 2186/3 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined\n as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a\n coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\n While all but one player satisfy at least one Losing Condition,\n that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n[Cross-references (9 January 2008): list of Winning Conditions:\n * Clout (rule 2134)\n * Dictatorship (rule 2223)\n * High Score (rule 2187)\n * Legislation (rule 2188)\n * Musicianship (rule 2126)\n * Paradox (rule 2110)\n * Renaissance (rule 2199)\n * Solitude (rule 2186)]'),(497464,'rcs','00000001.00000976',106,'Amended(18) by Proposal 6090 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1235283793,'Rule 106/18 (Power=3) [Rules]\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate. The text of a proposal\n CANNOT change after it is distributed; however, this does not\n affect any other entity (proposal or otherwise) solely because\n that entity has the same text.\n\n A player CAN create a proposal by publishing (\"submitting\") a\n body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to\n become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal\n Pool.\n\n A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a\n Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere. Removing\n a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an\n Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.\n\n If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active\n player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so\n Without 3 Objections.\n\n A co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author)\n unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was\n submitted.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(16) by cleaning, 12 February 2009\nAmended(17) by Proposal 6089 (Goethe), 22 February 2009\nAmended(18) by Proposal 6090 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009'),(497463,'rcs','00000001.00000975',106,'Amended(17) by Proposal 6089 (Goethe), 22 February 2009','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1235283621,'Rule 106/17 (Power=3) [Rules]\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player CAN create a proposal by publishing (\"submitting\") a\n body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to\n become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal\n Pool.\n\n A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a\n Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere. Removing\n a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an\n Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.\n\n If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active\n player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so\n Without 3 Objections.\n\n A co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author)\n unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was\n submitted.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(16) by cleaning, 12 February 2009\nAmended(17) by Proposal 6089 (Goethe), 22 February 2009'),(497462,'rcs','00000001.00000974',2217,'Amended(2) by Proposal 6088 (ais523), 22 February 2009','Periodic Elections','Periodic Elections',1235283569,'Rule 2217/2 (Power=1) [Administration]\nPeriodic Elections\n\n Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after an\n elected office ceases to have (or is created without) an active\n holder, or after an election for the office ends and the office\n still lacks an active holder, the IADoP SHALL initiate an\n election for that office. This requirement is waived if the\n office comes to have an active holder, or if another player\n initiates an election for the office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 6088 (ais523), 22 February 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6088 (ais523), 22 February 2009'),(497461,'rcs','00000001.00000973',1922,'Amended(31) by Proposal 6084 (Goethe), 16 February 2009','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1234850185,'Rule 1922/31 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all\n non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is\n administratively revoked from any player who would be\n Speaker if the player wasn\'t inactive, until the number of\n persons bearing this title is no longer greater than the\n number of Prerogatives defined by the rules; if it is still\n greater, then this title is administratively revoked from\n the Speaker.\n\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any\n player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n (h) Cassandra, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam,\n thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and\n yet the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of\n other players.\n\n (h) Missed Congeniality, to be awarded to persons who gain the\n ability to make arbitrary changes to Rules with a power\n less than 2 by announcement, but lose the ability before\n gaining the ability to make such changes to higher-powered\n rules.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5805 (Murphy, Zefram), 29 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5967 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6009 (Sgeo), 10 December 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 6071 (ais523), 16 February 2009\nAmended(31) by Proposal 6084 (Goethe), 16 February 2009'),(497460,'rcs','00000001.00000972',1922,'Amended(30) by Proposal 6071 (ais523), 16 February 2009','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1234849780,'Rule 1922/30 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all\n non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is\n administratively revoked from any player who would be\n Speaker if the player wasn\'t inactive, until the number of\n persons bearing this title is no longer greater than the\n number of Prerogatives defined by the rules; if it is still\n greater, then this title is administratively revoked from\n the Speaker.\n\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any\n player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n (h) Cassandra, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam,\n thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and\n yet the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of\n other players.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5805 (Murphy, Zefram), 29 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5967 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6009 (Sgeo), 10 December 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 6071 (ais523), 16 February 2009'),(497459,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2207,'Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Trade Embargo','Trade Embargo',1234755310,'Rule 2207/0 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations]\nTrade Embargo\n\n A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its\n Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497458,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2206,'Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Foreign Trade','Foreign Trade',1234755310,'Rule 2206/0 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations]\nForeign Trade\n\n A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a\n foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon\n as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the\n announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.\n\n The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt\n legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable\n foreign assets.\n\n Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign\n exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497457,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2159,'Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1234755310,'Rule 2159/3 (Power=2) [Foreign Relations]\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora whose intended effect is\n to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate nomic.\n The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending rules\n of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n Initiating a protective decree is secured, and is INVALID unless\n the initiating instrument unambiguously specifies the target\n protectorate and the changes to be made to it.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497456,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2147,'Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Protectorates','Protectorates',1234755310,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2) [Foreign Relations]\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497455,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2185,'Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1234755310,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations]\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497454,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2148,'Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1234755310,'Rule 2148/3 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations]\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the\n ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora\'s ambassador.\n If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in\n such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497453,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2200,'Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1234755310,'Rule 2200/3 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations]\nNomic Definitions\n\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic other than this one, even if it has\n the same name as this one.\n\n A province is a protectorate that is a player.\n\n An embassy is a registered partnership designated as\n representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and\n the rules of that nomic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5968 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497452,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2187,'Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1234755310,'Rule 2187/4 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs]\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x\n + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all\n those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have each of eir coordinates set to\n floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that\n axis and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497451,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2233,'Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Awarding and Revoking Points','Awarding and Revoking Points',1234755310,'Rule 2233/0 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs]\nAwarding and Revoking Points\n\n For each of a contest\'s axes, where N is the number of its\n parties that were active first-class players at the beginning of\n the week:\n\n a) A contest CAN award a total of 5N points per week.\n Its contestmaster CAN award points (up to this total) to\n its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as\n explicitly described in its contract.\n\n b) A contest CAN revoke a total of 2N points per week.\n Its contestmaster CAN revoke such points (up to this total)\n from its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as\n explicitly described in its contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497450,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2232,'Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Contest Axes','Contest Axes',1234755310,'Rule 2232/0 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs]\nContest Axes\n\n Each contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}.\n\n An axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows,\n provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of\n multiple contests sharing an axis:\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its\n axes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497449,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2136,'Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Contests','Contests',1234755310,'Rule 2136/28 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs]\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n not \'none\'.\n\n The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n within the past seven days.\n\n c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6037 (Goethe), 13 January 2009\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497448,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2179,'Amended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009','Points','Points',1234755310,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs]\nPoints\n\n For each point axis:\n\n a) Points is a fixed currency.\n\n b) A player\'s coordinate (syn. score) is the\n number of points e owns.\n\n There are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi,\n where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.\n\n Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is\n secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the\n same power threshold.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n transferred this way to any one player, nor from any one player,\n per week.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009'),(497447,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2191,'Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by','Pledges','Pledges',1234755310,'Rule 2191/4 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship]\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a public contract identifying itself as such. A\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied\n obligations on its current parties, and will not do so in the\n future in its current form, then any person CAN terminate it by\n announcing that it is obsolete.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy, comex), 16 July 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497446,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2173,'Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by','The Notary','The Notary',1234755310,'Rule 2173/3 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship]\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5628 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497445,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2178,'Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1234755310,'Rule 2178/5 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship]\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are\n private.\n\n A party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least\n one of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its parties, that the contract be\n public.\n\n (d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication,\n contains a clause or indication that the contract is a\n pledge.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do\n not become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),\n 29 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497444,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2198,'Amended(4) by cleaning, 12 February 2009','Making Contract Changes','Making Contract Changes',1234755310,'Rule 2198/4 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship]\nMaking Contract Changes\n\n Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a\n mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, then any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5677 (ihope; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by cleaning, 12 February 2009'),(497443,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2197,'Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by','Defining Contract Changes','Defining Contract Changes',1234755310,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship]\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497442,'rcs','00000001.00000970',1742,'Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by','Contracts','Contracts',1234755310,'Rule 1742/17 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship]\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.\n\n Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not\n otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or\n more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and\n governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have\n at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a\n manner of equity, if a player is found GUILTY of violating this\n Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract that has\n never been a partnership, the only appropriate sentence is\n DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with respect to a\n previously-imposed Equity judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5663 (Murphy), 9 August 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497441,'rcs','00000001.00000970',1868,'Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1234755310,'Rule 1868/13 (Power=2) [Judiciary]\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal \"with cause\" is a recusal defined as\n such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497440,'rcs','00000001.00000970',911,'Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1234755310,'Rule 911/25 (Power=1.7) [Judiciary]\nAppeal Cases\n\n Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s\n purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that\n has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the\n judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being\n questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the\n prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this rule is used to refer\n to the circumstances of the prior assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the\n prior judgement at the time it was delivered:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is\n rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the\n judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior\n question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be\n assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior\n case will not make a better judgement if given a new\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each\n member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating\n a valid and appropriate judgement to assign to the case -- only\n the first such published opinion for each member is used to\n determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD include arguments for\n eir choice of judgement. If, immediately after either all\n members have so published or the time limit for so publishing\n has ended, a majority of the members have opined for the same\n judgement, the panel acts to deliver the judgement in question.\n If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel\n acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. If the panel publishes a\n valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules,\n the requirement for individual members to publish individual\n opinions is waived.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497439,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2157,'Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1234755310,'Rule 2157/6 (Power=1.7) [Judiciary]\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members. By\n this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n The rules may specify other mechanisms by which the judicial\n panel CAN act.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497438,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2169,'Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1234755310,'Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7) [Entrepreneurship]\nEquity Cases\n\n Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case\'s\n purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the operation of\n a particular contract. An equity case CAN be initiated by any\n party to the contract, by announcement which clearly identifies\n the contract and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly identify the\n set of parties to the contract.\n\n For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are\n measured as of the time the case was initiated; however, if the\n initiating message specifies a different time that falls within\n the week before the case was initiated, then that time is used\n instead.\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the\n contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in\n all entities being unqualified.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of\n regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.\n\n Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an\n enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are\n satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability\n to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise\n perform.\n\n If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this\n Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party\'s\n behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the\n party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than\n DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both.\n\n The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a\n specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the\n requirement of parties to act as specified.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question\n by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is\n appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was\n fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals\n judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no\n longer applicable due to changed circumstances.\n\n If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding\n a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the\n contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it,\n then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null\n judgement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 6006 (Murphy), 10 December 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497437,'rcs','00000001.00000970',1504,'Amended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1234755310,'Rule 1504/35 (Power=2) [Crime]\nCriminal Cases\n\n Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any\n first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an\n announcement calling for judgement on the circumstances\n surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a\n rules breach by a single entity (the Accused). The initiator\n and each member of the Accused\'s basis are unqualified to be\n assigned as judge of the case.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable\n doubt, that ALL of the following are true:\n (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified\n act;\n (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being\n initiated;\n (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal\n case, or punishment already applied through another\n uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act;\n (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the\n alleged act did not violate the specified rule;\n (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the\n breach without committing a different breach of equal or\n greater severity.\n\n * NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In\n delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of\n the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to\n be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to\n be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir\n possession due to the notice in question, the judge CAN and\n SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of\n Failure to Apologize.\n\n * SILENCE, a number of Rests, equal to the defined Class of the\n Crime or (if the breach is not a defined crime) the power of\n the breached Rule, rounded to the nearest integer with ties\n broken by rounding up, are created in the possession of the\n Ninny. The judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2\n Support, and SHOULD attempt to do so if e believes the Ninny\n showed bad faith by contesting an obviously-correct notice or\n by obstructing the course of justice.\n\n Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class\n greater than 14.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by\n announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation\n of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are\n still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN\n and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008\nAmended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,\n OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008\nAmended(34) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009'),(497436,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2230,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009','Notices of Violation','Notices of Violation',1234755310,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2) [Crime]\nNotices of Violation\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the\n Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N\n is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that\n Crime.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is\n published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN\n cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by\n announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests\n are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes\n Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by\n judicial processes as described elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009'),(497435,'rcs','00000001.00000970',591,'Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1234755310,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7) [Judiciary]\nInquiry Cases\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular\n statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to\n including a statement that the answer to that question is yes,\n and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical\n extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that\n don\'t actually exist\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497434,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2158,'Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1234755310,'Rule 2158/6 (Power=2) [Judiciary]\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497433,'rcs','00000001.00000970',991,'Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1234755310,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2) [Judiciary]\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * announce whether a Notice of Violation is valid (rule 2230)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)\n * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAssigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497432,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2126,'Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Notes','Notes',1234755310,'Rule 2126/58 (Power=2) [Finance]\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the\n highest interest index among all such offices.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to\n the highest interest index among all such offices.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a\n number of D Notes equal to the highest interest index\n among all such cases.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497431,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2137,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','The Assessor','The Assessor',1234755310,'Rule 2137/2 (Power=1) [Rules]\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497430,'rcs','00000001.00000970',1607,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','The Promotor','The Promotor',1234755310,'Rule 1607/19 (Power=2) [Rules]\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal\n Pool at any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the\n distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool\n since the beginning of that week.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal\ndistribution of either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497429,'rcs','00000001.00000970',106,'Amended(16) by cleaning, 12 February 2009','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1234755310,'Rule 106/16 (Power=3) [Rules]\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The author (syn.\n proposer) of a proposal is the player who submitted it. The\n author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by\n announcement.\n\n A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a\n Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere. Removing\n a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an\n Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.\n\n If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active\n player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so\n Without 3 Objections.\n\n A co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author)\n unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was\n submitted.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(16) by cleaning, 12 February 2009'),(497428,'rcs','00000001.00000970',955,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1234755310,'Rule 955/15 (Power=3) [Rules]\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then the voting index\n is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (c) If the decision is for an election, then the outcome is the\n candidate with the most votes. In case of a tie, the vote\n collector SHALL select one of the leaders as the outcome.\n If there are no candidates, then the outcome is null.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497427,'rcs','00000001.00000970',208,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1234755310,'Rule 208/7 (Power=3) [Rules]\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June\n 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497426,'rcs','00000001.00000970',683,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1234755310,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3) [Rules]\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more\nvotes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the\nmaking of a false statement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497424,'rcs','00000001.00000970',693,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1234755310,'Rule 693/9 (Power=3) [Rules]\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497425,'rcs','00000001.00000970',107,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1234755310,'Rule 107/10 (Power=3) [Rules]\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be\n shorter than seven days. The vote collector for a decision with\n less than two options CAN end the voting period by announcement,\n provided that e resolves the decision in the same message.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497423,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2138,'Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1234755310,'Rule 2138/5 (Power=1) [Administration]\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP\'s\n report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2217)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2217)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497422,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2217,'Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Periodic Elections','Periodic Elections',1234755310,'Rule 2217/1 (Power=2) [Administration]\nPeriodic Elections\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an elected office\'s stability without 2 objections. A\n Perpetual office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of\n that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have (or is created without) an\n active holder, or after an election for the office ends and\n the office still lacks an active holder. This requirement\n is waived if the office comes to have an active holder.\n\n These requirements are also waived if another player initiates\n an election for the office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497421,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2154,'Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Election Procedure','Election Procedure',1234755310,'Rule 2154/20 (Power=2) [Administration]\nElection Procedure\n\n Any player CAN by announcement initiate an election for an\n elected office for which no election is already in progress,\n nominating at least one active player.\n\n During the first four days of the election (the nomination\n period), any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more\n active players.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, the IADoP\n SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder. For this decision:\n\n 1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active\n players who, during the election,\n\n a) received and accepted a nomination for the office\n before the decision was initiated (self-nomination\n constitutes acceptance), and\n\n b) did not decline a nomination for the office, and\n\n c) are Senators if there is currently an Emergency\n Session.\n\n The set of candidates can change after the decision is\n initiated.\n\n 2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is\n initiated, the eligible voters are the active players.\n Otherwise, the eligible voters are the active Senators.\n\n 3) Each eligible voter\'s voting limit is one. An ordered list\n of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for the\n first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the\n second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth.\n\n Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a\n candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5998 (Sgeo), 7 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497420,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2160,'Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Deputisation','Deputisation',1234755310,'Rule 2160/3 (Power=3) [Administration]\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 5983 (Warrigal), 29 November\n 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497419,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2143,'Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1234755310,'Rule 2143/4 (Power=1) [Administration]\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,\n and the publication of all such information is part of that\n office\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each month. If any information is defined\n by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then\n the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such\n information, and the publication of all such information is\n part of that office\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6030 (Murphy; disi.), 8 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497418,'rcs','00000001.00000970',1006,'Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,','Offices','Offices',1234755310,'Rule 1006/27 (Power=2) [Administration]\nOffices\n\n An office is a role defined as such by the rules. Each office\n is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one\n player. An officer is the holder of an office, who may be\n referred to by the name of that office.\n\n An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule\n defining it. All others are elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,\n woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497417,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2181,'Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','The Accountor','The Accountor',1234755310,'Rule 2181/7 (Power=1) [Finance]\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of classes of assets.\n\n The Accountor\'s report includes a list of all public classes of\n assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5598 (Wooble; disi.), 29 June 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5600 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497416,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2166,'Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Assets','Assets',1234755310,'Rule 2166/9 (Power=2) [Finance]\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract\n (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because\n its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)\n defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That\n entity\'s report includes a list of all instances of that class\n and their owners. This portion of that entity\'s report is\n self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n A public class of assets is a class of assets whose backing\n document is a rule or a public contract. All others are\n private.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[CFJ 1910 (called 10 March 2008): When an existing entity is defined\nas an asset, the change of its owner from \"undefined\" to the Lost and\nFound Department [Bank at the time of CFJ 1910] counts as a transfer,\nand fails if the Lost and Found Department is outside of the class of\nobjects that can own the entity.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5974 (Murphy; disi.), 25 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497414,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2228,'Amended(2) by Proposal 6066 (comex, Goethe; disi.), 4 February 2009','Rests','Rests',1234755310,'Rule 2228/2 (Power=2) [Crime]\nRests\n\n Rests are a fixed asset. The creation and destruction of Rests\n is secured with a power threshold of 1.7, a person generally\n CANNOT destroy rests except as permitted by Rules explicitly\n stating methods by which rests in particular CAN be destroyed.\n\n The Insulator is an office, and the recordkeepor of Rests.\n\n Ownership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons. If, in\n the absence of this restriction, a number (N) of Rests would be\n created in the ownership of a non-first-class person, then for\n each member of that person\'s basis, N Rests are created in that\n member\'s possession.\n\n A player CAN spend two Notes in order to destroy a Rest owned by\n a player e specifies.\n\n A first-class player CAN create Rests in eir own possession by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6060 (Wooble, comex, Goethe), 4 February 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6066 (comex, Goethe; disi.), 4 February 2009'),(497415,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2229,'Assigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Just Resting','Just Resting',1234755310,'Rule 2229/0 (Power=2) [Crime]\nJust Resting\n\n Owning one or more Rests is a Losing Condition.\n\n While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend\n Notes except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence\n over any other rule.\n\n While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be\n deregistered by any player by announcement. A person who owns\n at least 6 Rests, or where every member of eir basis owns 6\n Rests, CANNOT register, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n A person who has one or more rests but is not a player is a\n Fugitive. The Herald\'s report shall include a list of all\n Fugitives and the number of Rests they possess. At the\n beginning of each month, half of each Fugitive\'s rests (rounded\n down) are destroyed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497413,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2145,'Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by','Partnerships','Partnerships',1234755310,'Rule 2145/6 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship]\nPartnerships\n\n A partnership is a contract that devolves each of its legal\n obligations onto at least one of its parties, but does not\n devolve all of them solely onto one of its parties. The members\n of a partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s\n legal obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s\n identity and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings,\n e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the\n crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate\n sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the\n partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is\n not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or\n would not adequately apply responsibility.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by\n Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497412,'rcs','00000001.00000970',105,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1234755310,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3) [Rules]\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February\n 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497411,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2199,'Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Ribbons','Ribbons',1234755310,'Rule 2199/3 (Power=2) [Finance]\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. If winning is secured,\n then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured with the same power\n threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this\n fashion before), that player gains a White Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6008 (PNP), 10 December 2008\nAssigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497410,'rcs','00000001.00000970',2140,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Power Controls Mutability','Power Controls Mutability',1234755310,'Rule 2140/0 (Power=3) [Rules]\nPower Controls Mutability\n\n No entity with power below the power of this rule can\n\n (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.\n\n (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than\n its own.\n\n (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with\n power greater than its own. A \"substantive\" aspect of\n an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument\'s\n operation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497409,'rcs','00000001.00000970',1688,'Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,','Power','Power',1234755310,'Rule 1688/4 (Power=3) [Rules]\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\n A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)\n thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as\n allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n change\'s power threshold. This threshold defaults to the\n securing rule\'s power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that\n rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAssigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497408,'rcs','00000001.00000969',1681,'Amended(16) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1234584329,'Rule 1681/16 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules\n are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, committee assignments (if any),\n title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n The Full Logical Ruleset (FLR) is a format of the ruleset. In\n this format, rules are assigned to the same category and\n presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain\n all the information required to be in the SLR, and any\n historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6019 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009'),(497465,'rcs','00000001.00000977',2230,'Amended(5) by Proposal 6093 (Murphy), 22 February 2009','Notices of Violation','Notices of Violation',1235284096,'Rule 2230/5 (Power=2) [Crime]\nNotices of Violation\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is\n a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged\n breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N;\n otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is\n published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN\n cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by\n announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests\n are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power\n of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes\n Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by\n judicial processes as described elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6093 (Murphy), 22 February 2009'),(497478,'rcs','00000001.00000990',2186,'Amended(5) by Proposal 6083 (ais523), 22 February 2009','Victory','Victory',1235286592,'Rule 2186/5 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined\n as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a\n coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When used as a period of time, a \"game\" is the period of time\n between one instant at which at least one person won the game,\n and the next such instant. The \"first game\" was the period of\n time prior to the first instant at which a person won the game.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\n While a player is the only active first-class player not to\n satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning\n Condition of Solitude.\n\n Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning\n Condition again until at least one other player ceases to\n satisfy any Losing Condition.\n\n[Cross-references (9 January 2008): list of Winning Conditions:\n * Clout (rule 2134)\n * Dictatorship (rule 2223)\n * High Score (rule 2187)\n * Legislation (rule 2188)\n * Musicianship (rule 2126)\n * Paradox (rule 2110)\n * Renaissance (rule 2199)\n * Solitude (rule 2186)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6052 (Murphy), 23 January 2009\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6083 (ais523), 22 February 2009'),(497477,'rcs','00000001.00000989',2230,'Amended(8) by Proposal 6079 (Murphy), 22 February 2009','Notices of Violation','Notices of Violation',1235286456,'Rule 2230/8 (Power=2) [Crime]\nNotices of Violation\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,\n where N is the number of valid Notices of Violation e previously\n published during the same week, or by announcement if N is zero)\n alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule.\n To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must\n specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is\n a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged\n breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N;\n otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Insulator SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such\n an announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of\n the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the\n allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n If a Notice is Uncontested and was published at least four days\n ago, any player CAN cause it to become Closed by announcement.\n Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become\n Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number\n of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to\n the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice\n becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later\n destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6093 (Murphy), 22 February 2009\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6094 (ais523), 22 February 2009\nAmended(7) by Proposal 6103 (Murphy), 22 February 2009\nAmended(8) by Proposal 6079 (Murphy), 22 February 2009'),(497476,'rcs','00000001.00000988',2236,'Amended(1) by Proposal 6078 (Wooble), 22 February 2009','Committee Membership','Committee Membership',1235286310,'Rule 2236/1 (Power=2)\nCommittee Membership\n\n The following committees exist, with the following charter\n positions:\n\n a) Committee on Rules (Rulekeepor, Promotor, Assessor, Grand\n Poobah, Speaker, Anarchist)\n\n b) Committee on Administration (all high-priority officers)\n\n c) Committee on the Judiciary (Clerk of the Courts, all\n first-class players whose judicial rank is Supreme and whose\n posture is standing or sitting)\n\n d) Committee on Crime (Justiciar, Insulator, all first-class\n players whose hawkishness is hanging and whose posture is\n standing or sitting)\n\n d) Committee on Finance (Accountor, all recordkeepors of\n rule-backed assets)\n\n e) Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Notary, all\n partnerships, Liaison of each subsidized contract)\n\n f) Committee on Indian Affairs (Scorekeepor, all contestmasters)\n\n g) Committee on Foreign Relations (Speaker, Ambassador, all\n Embassies)\n\n While an active player holds one or more charter positions for a\n committee, e is a charter member of that committee. When a\n charter member of a committee ceases to hold any charter\n positions for that committee, or ceases to be an active player,\n e ceases to be a member of that committee.\n\n While a committee\'s number of charter members (CM) is less than\n five, a non-member CAN spend any 5-CM of eir Notes forming\n consecutive tones of a pentatonic scale to become a non-charter\n member of that committee. While a committee\'s number of members\n is more than five, its non-charter member that has been one for\n the longest continuous period of time ceases to be a member.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the membership of each committee.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6078 (Wooble), 22 February 2009'),(497474,'rcs','00000001.00000986',2240,'Created by Proposal 6073 (Murphy), 22 February 2009','No Cretans Need Apply','No Cretans Need Apply',1235286207,'Rule 2240/0 (Power=3)\nNo Cretans Need Apply\n\n If a rule contains one or more self-contradictory chains of\n clauses claiming precedence over and/or deference to one\n another, then the last claim (when reading the rule from top to\n bottom) involved in one or more such chains has no effect; this\n process is repeated as often as needed until all such chains are\n broken.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6073 (Murphy), 22 February 2009'),(497475,'rcs','00000001.00000987',2211,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6077 (Murphy), 22 February 2009','The Grand Poobah','The Grand Poobah',1235286243,'Rule 2211/3 (Power=2)\nThe Grand Poobah\n\n The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of castes.\n\n The Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player\'s caste by\n announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by\n the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case\n finds that e has flipped a Player\'s caste illegally (e.g. not\n as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the\n appropriate correct value as soon as possible.\n\n If a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped\n illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e\n has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the\n matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts\n and the Grand Poobah\'s ability to correct the issue, unless\n they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of\n this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Alpha\'s caste is flipped to\n eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of\n each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order,\n at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet\n been chosen during the current procedure:\n\n 1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a\n player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling\n or exceeding the new caste:\n\n a) Flip a player\'s caste to Alpha\n b) Flip a player\'s caste to Beta\n c) Flip a player\'s caste to Gamma\n d) Flip a player\'s caste to Delta\n\n 2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed.\n\n a->b) While there is more than one Alpha,\n flip an Alpha\'s caste to Beta\n b->c) While there are more than two Betas,\n flip a Beta\'s caste to Gamma\n c->d) While there are more than three Gammas,\n flip a Gamma\'s caste to Delta\n d->e) While there are more than four Deltas,\n flip a Delta\'s caste to Epsilon\n\n During the seven days immediately prior to the start of a month,\n the Speaker CAN publish an Honors List, indicating a list of\n players other than emself for promotion. If such a list is\n published, the Grand Poobah SHALL, during the Promotions step\n above, make as many legal promotions from this list as possible\n before making any other promotions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5680 (Goethe), 3 September 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5696 (Goethe), 20 September 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6077 (Murphy), 22 February 2009'),(497473,'rcs','00000001.00000985',2201,'Amended(1) by Proposal 6106 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009','Self-Ratification','Self-Ratification',1235285900,'Rule 2201/1 (Power=3)\nSelf-Ratification\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation. The original document is never ratified due\n to this rule, the rest of this rule notwithstanding.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6106 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009'),(497472,'rcs','00000001.00000983',2239,'Created by Proposal 6104 (Murphy), 22 February 2009','Grandfather Forgiveness','Grandfather Forgiveness',1235285786,'Rule 2239/0 (Power=2)\nGrandfather Forgiveness\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any Notice of Violation\n alleging a rule violation prior to the adoption of this rule is\n invalid. If this rule has existed for at least 200 days, then\n any player CAN (by announcement) cause it to repeal itself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6104 (Murphy), 22 February 2009'),(497471,'rcs','00000001.00000982',2230,'Amended(7) by Proposal 6103 (Murphy), 22 February 2009','Notices of Violation','Notices of Violation',1235285635,'Rule 2230/7 (Power=2) [Crime]\nNotices of Violation\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation (with N support,\n where N is the number of valid Notices of Violation e previously\n published during the same week, or by announcement if N is zero)\n alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule.\n To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must\n specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is\n a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged\n breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N;\n otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n If a Notice is Uncontested and was published at least four days\n ago, any player CAN cause it to become Closed by announcement.\n Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become\n Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number\n of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to\n the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice\n becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later\n destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6093 (Murphy), 22 February 2009\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6094 (ais523), 22 February 2009\nAmended(7) by Proposal 6103 (Murphy), 22 February 2009'),(497470,'rcs','00000001.00000981',2130,'Amended(10) by Proposal 6100 (Pavitra; disi.), 22 February 2009','Activity','Activity',1235285565,'Rule 2130/10 (Power=2)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection. This is a means of honorable deregistration.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 6100 (Pavitra; disi.), 22 February 2009'),(497469,'rcs','00000001.00000980',1789,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1235285471,'Rule 1789/6 (Power=2)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled\n a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir\n reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the\n Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of\n deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports,\n as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October\n 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5991 (Elysion), 7 December 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009'),(497468,'rcs','00000001.00000980',869,'Amended(28) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1235285471,'Rule 869/28 (Power=2)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered. Changes to\n citizenship are secured.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A first-class person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or\n prevented by the rules) register by announcing that e registers,\n wishes to register, requests registration, or requests\n permission to register.\n\n A second-class person CAN register with Agoran Consent.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. A person CANNOT\n register within thirty days after being deregistered by any\n means other than by a mechanism that the rules explicitly\n describe as a means of honorable deregistration.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5973 (woggle), 25 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009'),(497467,'rcs','00000001.00000979',2221,'Amended(1) by Proposal 6098 (comex), 22 February 2009','Cleanliness','Cleanliness',1235284877,'Rule 2221/1 (Power=3)\nCleanliness\n\n Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one\n or more spelling and/or grammar corrections; the rule is amended\n as specified.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5975 (Murphy), 25 November 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6098 (comex), 22 February 2009'),(497466,'rcs','00000001.00000978',2230,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6094 (ais523), 22 February 2009','Notices of Violation','Notices of Violation',1235284712,'Rule 2230/6 (Power=2) [Crime]\nNotices of Violation\n\n A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a\n single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered\n a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of:\n (a) The identity of the Accused;\n (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question;\n (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken;\n (d) If the Rules specify exactly one Class-N Crime (where N is\n a positive integer) as being associated with the alleged\n breach, then the name of that Crime and the value of N;\n otherwise, the Power of the Rule that was allegedly broken.\n\n Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect\n information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel.\n\n A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if:\n (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice\n of Violation;\n (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical\n information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific\n act).\n (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the\n Rules.\n\n Neither a Notice\'s incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is\n false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting\n from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according\n to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity.\n\n As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is\n reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice,\n the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was\n valid. Such a Clerk of the Court\'s announcement is\n self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not\n in itself certify the correctness of the allegation.\n\n A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a\n Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the\n publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it\n Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes\n it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes\n Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its\n incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning\n its validity).\n\n If a Notice is Uncontested and was published at least four days\n ago, any player CAN cause it to become Closed by announcement.\n Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become\n Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number\n of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to\n the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice\n becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later\n destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr),\n 14 December 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009\nAssigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,\n ais523), 23 January 2009\nAmended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6093 (Murphy), 22 February 2009\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6094 (ais523), 22 February 2009'),(497279,'rcs','00000001.00000904',911,'Amended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1228006444,'Rule 911/25 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\n\n Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An appeal case\'s\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the\n effects, are as follows:\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is\n rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the\n judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior\n question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be\n assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior\n case will not make a better judgement if given a new\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497225,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2197,'Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October','Defining Contract Changes','Defining Contract Changes',1227766571,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008'),(497226,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2198,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nRule 2198/3 (Power=2)\n\n Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a\n mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5677 (ihope; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008\n\n\nRule 2178/5 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\nRule 2178/4 (Power=2)\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are\n private.\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least\n one of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its parties, that the contract be\n public.\n\n (d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication,\n contains a clause or indication that the contract is a\n pledge.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do\n not become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),\n 29 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\n\n\nRule 2237/0 (Power=2)\nSubsidized Contracts\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s weekly report\n includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary\'s monthly\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5628 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October\n 2008'),(496325,'zefram',NULL,1441,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon beginning a new quarter, any Player with Blots immediately\n loses a number of Mils equal to the number of eir Blots.\n Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved,\n rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will\n never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.\n\n Detecting and reporting this Blot change is the Tabulator\'s\n responsibility. The Tabulator reports the Mark losses to the\n Banker.\n\n'),(496330,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(6) by Proposal 1625, 17 July 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may\n use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum\n allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.\n\n A Player casts an extra Vote by notifying the Assessor that e is\n doing so, at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which\n the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself.\n\n If, at the moment the Player casts an extra Vote, e possesses at\n least one Extra Vote, then the casted Vote is legal, and one\n Extra Vote is transferred from the Treasury of the Player to the\n Bank. Otherwise, the casted Vote is not legal, and no transfer\n takes place.\n\n All transfers required by this Rule shall be detected and\n reported by the Assessor.\n\n'),(496331,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(7) by Proposal 2506, 3 March 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may\n use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum\n allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.\n\n A Player casts an extra Vote by notifying the Assessor that e is\n doing so, at the same time specifying the Proposal upon which\n the Vote is cast, and the Vote itself.\n\n If, at the moment the Player casts an extra Vote, e possesses at\n least one Extra Vote, then the Vote cast is legal, and one\n Extra Vote is transferred from the Treasury of the Player to the\n Bank. Otherwise, the casted Vote is not legal, and no transfer\n takes place.\n\n All transfers required by this Rule shall be detected and\n reported by the Assessor.\n\n'),(496326,'zefram',NULL,1441,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon beginning a new quarter, any Player with Blots immediately\n loses a number of Mil equal to the number of eir Blots.\n Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved,\n rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will\n never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.\n\n Detecting and reporting this Blot change is the Tabulator\'s\n responsibility. The Tabulator reports the Mark losses to the\n Banker.\n\n'),(496327,'zefram',NULL,1441,'Amended(4)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon beginning a new quarter, any Player with Blots immediately\n loses a number of Mil equal to the number of eir Blots.\n Every Player who is not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved,\n rounding down to the next lower integer. This halving will\n never reduce a Player\'s total Blots below one.\n\n Detecting and reporting this Blot change is the Herald\'s\n responsibility. The Herald reports the Mark losses to the\n Banker.\n\n'),(496328,'zefram',NULL,1441,'Amended(5)',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Upon beginning a new quarter, any Player with Blots immediately\n loses a number of VTs equal to the number of eir Blots divided\n by five, rounded up to the nearest 0.5 VT. Every Player who is\n not Immaculate has eir total Blots halved, rounding down to the\n next lower integer. This halving will never reduce a Player\'s\n total Blots below one.\n\n Detecting and reporting this Blot change is the Herald\'s\n responsibility. The Herald reports the VT losses to the\n Assessor.\n\n'),(496329,'zefram',NULL,1442,'Amended(5) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Provided that e possesses sufficient Extra Votes, a Player may\n use them to cast extra Votes on a Proposal up to the maximum\n allowed to them for that Proposal, as specified in other Rules.\n\n'),(496275,'zefram',NULL,1434,'Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1434 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006',NULL,NULL,NULL,NULL),(496276,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Enacted as MI=1 Rule 1435 by Proposal 1457, 1 March 1995',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Let there be an Entity called a Blot. At all times all Players\n possess an integral number of Blots equal to or greater than\n zero. Any Player with zero Blots is referred to as Immaculate.\n Any new Player, or a Player with no recorded Blots, shall be\n Immaculate.\n\n Blots may never be transferred between Players.\n\n A Player who is not Immaculate can\'t Win the Game. This Rule\n takes precedence over any other rule defining who is eligible to\n Win.\n\n'),(496277,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), 11 May 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Currency. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences\n is the Herald.\n\n A Blot is an amount of -1 Indulgences. A gain of Blots is\n the same as a loss of Indulgences, and a loss of Blots is the\n same as a gain of Indulgences. Any Player with nonnegative\n Indulgences is referred to as Immaculate.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n'),(496278,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Currency. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is\n the Herald.\n\n A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of which is the\n Bank, is called a Blot. When a Rule states that a Player is to\n gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed\n with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a\n number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player\n is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is\n required to report the change in Blots.\n\n A Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum\n of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em\n as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are\n disputed (but not those which have been vacated). A Player with\n no such Payment Orders is Immaculate. It is a Win-Preventing\n condition for a Player to have one or more Blots.\n\n'),(496279,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), 17 August 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Currency. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is\n the Herald. The Mintor of Indulgences is the Bank.\n\n A Payment Order for 1 Indulgence, the payee of which is the\n Bank, is called a Blot. When a Rule states that a Player is to\n gain some number of Blots, a Payment Order shall be executed\n with that Player as the payor, the Bank as the payee, and for a\n number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots that Player\n is to receive. This order is to be executed by whomever is\n required to report the change in Blots.\n\n A Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum\n of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em\n as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are\n disputed (but not those which have been vacated or satisfied).\n A Player with no such Payment Orders is Immaculate. It is a\n Win-Preventing condition for a Player to have one or more Blots.\n\n'),(496280,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 3569 (Zefram), 30 October 1997',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is 1.\n The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald. The Mintor of\n Indulgences is the Bank.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the number of Indulgences possessed\n by each entity which possesses them, and the changes thereof\n since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n\n A Payment Order for a number of Indulgences, the payee of which\n is the Bank, is known as that number of Blots. When a Rule\n states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment\n Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank\n as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to the\n number of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be\n executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots.\n\n A Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum\n of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em\n as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are\n disputed (but not those which have been vacated). A Player with\n no such Payment Orders is Immaculate. It is a Win-Preventing\n condition for a Player to have one or more Blots.\n\n'),(496281,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), 15 February 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is 1.\n The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald. The Mintor of\n Indulgences is the Bank.\n\n The Herald\'s Report includes the number of Indulgences possessed\n by each entity which possesses them, and the changes thereof\n since the last posting of the Herald\'s Report.\n\n A Payment Order for a number of Indulgences, the payee of which\n is the Bank, is known as that number of Blots. When a Rule\n states that a Player is to gain some number of Blots, a Payment\n Order shall be executed with that Player as the payor, the Bank\n as the payee, and for a number of Indulgences equal to the\n number of Blots that Player is to receive. This order is to be\n executed by whomever is required to report the change in Blots.\n\n A Player may be said to have a number of Blots equal to the sum\n of the amounts of all Payment Orders for Indulgences naming em\n as the payor and the Bank as payee, including orders which are\n disputed (but not those which have been vacated). A Player with\n no such Payment Orders is Immaculate.\n\n'),(496282,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), 15 November 1999',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is .1.\n The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.\n\n A Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.\n\n Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some\n number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or\n assessment to the Herald, the Herald shall record this increase\n in the number of Blots staining the affected Player as soon as\n possible after receiving the notification.\n\n Blots may be expunged from a Player\'s record as follows:\n\n i. The Rules authorize the expunging of Blots and specify\n a method by which this is reported to the Herald.\n\n ii. The Executor of an entity may expunge a number of Blots\n by transferring to the Bank a number of Indulgences equal\n to the number of Blots to be expunged, specifying the\n Blotted Player and the purpose of the transfer. Such a\n transfer may not be made for any other purpose. If the\n transfer specifies a number of Indulgences greater than the\n number of Blots staining the Blotted Player, then that\n transfer shall be deemed invalid.\n\n iii. The Player originally reporting the imposition of a Blot\n penalty may expunge the reported Blots, if e determines\n that the penalty was imposed in error.\n\n iv. Blots may be expunged by Judicial or Appellate Orders.\n\n The Herald shall record the decrease in the number of Blots\n staining a Player as soon as possible after receiving\n notification of the expungement or after successfully\n executing the relevant Indulgence Transfer Order.\n\n The Rules may define other methods by which the Herald may be\n required to record changes to a Player\'s Blot status.\n\n A player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be\n Immaculate.\n\n'),(496283,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is .1.\n The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.\n\n A Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.\n\n Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some\n number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or\n assessment to the Herald, the Herald shall record this increase\n in the number of Blots staining the affected Player as soon as\n possible after receiving the notification.\n\n Blots may be expunged from a Player\'s record as follows:\n\n i. The Rules authorize the expunging of Blots and specify\n a method by which this is reported to the Herald.\n\n ii. The Executor of an entity may expunge a number of Blots\n by posting publicly the number of Blots to be expunged and\n the Player to whom the Blots belong and Paying a Fee of a\n number of Indulgences equal to the number of Blots to be\n expunged. Any attempt to expunge more of a Player\'s Blots\n than e has fails.\n\n iii. The Player originally reporting the imposition of a Blot\n penalty may expunge the reported Blots, if e determines\n that the penalty was imposed in error.\n\n iv. Blots may be expunged by Judicial or Appellate Orders.\n\n The Herald shall record the decrease in the number of Blots\n staining a Player as soon as possible after receiving\n notification of the expungement or after successfully\n executing the relevant Indulgence Transfer Order.\n\n The Rules may define other methods by which the Herald may be\n required to record changes to a Player\'s Blot status.\n\n A player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be\n Immaculate. Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing condition.\n\n'),(496284,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), 15 January 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Indulgences is 0.1.\n The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the Herald.\n\n A Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.\n\n Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed\n some number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that\n gain or assessment to the Herald, the Herald shall record this\n increase in the number of Blots staining the affected Player as\n soon as possible after receiving the notification.\n\n Blots are expunged from a Player\'s record when:\n (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences,\n specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is\n for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a\n number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences\n transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all\n of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred\n than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned\n to the transferor); or\n (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots\n are to be expunged, provided that such method must include\n a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement\n and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.\n\n A player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be\n Immaculate.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n'),(496285,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ)\n of Indulgences is 0.1. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the\n Herald.\n\n A Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.\n\n Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some\n number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or\n assessment to the Herald, then, as soon as possible after\n receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record an\n increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready,\n of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in\n the number of Blots staining the affected Player.\n\n Blots are expunged from a Player\'s record when:\n (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences,\n specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is\n for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a\n number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences\n transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all\n of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred\n than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned\n to the transferor); or\n (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots\n are to be expunged, provided that such method must include\n a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement\n and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.\n\n A player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be\n Immaculate.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n'),(496286,'zefram',NULL,1435,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001',NULL,NULL,NULL,'\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ)\n of Indulgences is 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is\n the Herald.\n\n A Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.\n\n Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some\n number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or\n assessment to the Herald, then, as soon as possible after\n receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record an\n increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready,\n of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in\n the number of Blots staining the affected Player.\n\n Blots are expunged from a Player\'s record when:\n (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences,\n specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is\n for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a\n number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences\n transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all\n of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred\n than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned\n to the transferor); or\n (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots\n are to be expunged, provided that such method must include\n a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement\n and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.\n\n A player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be\n Immaculate.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n'),(432182,'rcs','00000001.00000700',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1202148250,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that \"no\ninterpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person\'s defined\nrights\" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of\nAgoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person\'s\ndefined rights are not being limited.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(432183,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2125,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1202148250,'Rule 2125/1 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if:\n\n (a) the action is prohibited;\n\n (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,\n then some player is permitted to perform the action;\n\n (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information\n for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor; or\n\n (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible\n to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any\n combinations of actions by players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007'),(432184,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1586,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1202148250,'Rule 1586/3 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still\n define that entity but with different properties, then that\n entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent\n is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(432185,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1688,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Power','Power',1202148250,'Rule 1688/4 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\n A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)\n thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as\n allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n change\'s power threshold. This threshold defaults to the\n securing rule\'s power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that\n rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(432186,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2140,'Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Power Controls Mutability','Power Controls Mutability',1202148250,'Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)\nPower Controls Mutability\n\n No entity with power below the power of this rule can\n\n (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.\n\n (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than\n its own.\n\n (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with\n power greater than its own. A \"substantive\" aspect of\n an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument\'s\n operation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(432187,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2149,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1202148250,'Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes\n that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2149 can occur\nwithout any intent to misdirect.]\n\n[CFJ 1887 (called 30 January 2008): Publicly making the statement\n\"This statement is a lie.\" would most likely be a violation of rule\n2149, because it is logically indeterminate and so making it would not\nbe telling the truth, and its logical indeterminacy would be\nunderstood by any reasonable player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(432188,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2186,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Victory','Victory',1202148250,'Rule 2186/0 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432189,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2110,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1202148250,'Rule 2110/4 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n Upon a judicial finding that the possibility or legality of a\n rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) is UNDECIDABLE, the initiator satisfies the Winning\n Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432190,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2177,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1202148250,'Rule 2177/5 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any player who is a member of the roll call is a\n senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of the\n most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007'),(432191,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2141,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1202148250,'Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(432192,'rcs','00000001.00000700',217,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Interpreting the Rules','Interpreting the Rules',1202148250,'Rule 217/6 (Power=3)\nInterpreting the Rules\n\n When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules\n takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or\n unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,\n past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the\n game.\n\n[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need\nnot necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or\nJustices given in past CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(432193,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1202148250,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.]\n\n[CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time\nof Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule\nof higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English\nmeaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does\nmust be decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(432194,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1030,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1202148250,'Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(432195,'rcs','00000001.00000700',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1202148250,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(432196,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1202148250,'Rule 1681/12 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(432197,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1051,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1202148250,'Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(432198,'rcs','00000001.00000700',869,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1202148250,'Rule 869/25 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(432199,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2144,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1202148250,'Rule 2144/8 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(432200,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1202148250,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(432201,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1202148250,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(432202,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2130,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Activity','Activity',1202148250,'Rule 2130/9 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(432203,'rcs','00000001.00000700',478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1202148250,'Rule 478/22 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007'),(432204,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2170,'Created by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1202148250,'Rule 2170/0 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n A public message\'s claim as to who published it is\n self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a\n challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has\n been issued within one month before its publication.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(432205,'rcs','00000001.00000700',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1202148250,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(432206,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2152,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1202148250,'Rule 2152/3 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified player(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the\n rule in question.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007'),(432207,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1023,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1202148250,'Rule 1023/23 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(432208,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2161,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1202148250,'Rule 2161/2 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(432209,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2146,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Indices','Indices',1202148250,'Rule 2146/1 (Power=2)\nIndices\n\n Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a\n total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum\n element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called\n positive infinity or unanimity.\n\n The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The\n ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The\n ratio of zero to any index is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(432210,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2162,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Switches','Switches',1202148250,'Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a\n switch, and specify the following:\n\n a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.\n No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.\n\n b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,\n exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other\n values are possible for instances of that switch.\n\n c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.\n That officer\'s report includes the value of each instance of\n that switch whose value is not its default value.\n\n At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one\n possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a\n switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.\n If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a\n possible value, it comes to have its default value.\n\n \"To flip an instance of a switch\" is to make it come to have a\n given value. \"To become X\" (where X is a possible value of\n exactly one of the subject\'s switches) is to flip that switch to\n X.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(432211,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2150,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007','Personhood','Personhood',1202148250,'Rule 2150/2 (Power=2)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n The basis of a a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007'),(432212,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2166,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Assets','Assets',1202148250,'Rule 2166/2 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nBank upon creation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(432213,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2181,'Created by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007','The Accountor','The Accountor',1202148250,'Rule 2181/0 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(432214,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1728,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1202148250,'Rule 1728/17 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An announcement of intent to perform a dependent action,\n unambiguously describing the action and method of dependent\n action, initiates the Agoran decision of whether to approve the\n action. For this decision:\n\n (a) The vote collector is the announcer.\n\n (b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.\n\n (c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately\n before it is resolved, whichever comes first.\n\n (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active\n first-class players at the start of the voting period,\n except for any entities disqualified by the rule specifying\n that the action can be performed dependently.\n\n (e) The voting limit of each eligible voter is one.\n\n (f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if\n it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or (if it has\n an objection and/or majority index) less than four days ago.\n\n (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs\n the action upon resolving the decision.\n\n (h) The announcer, by virtue of the announcement of intent,\n implicitly submits a ballot of SUPPORT on the Agoran\n decision, if e is an eligible voter and does not explicitly\n repudiate this implication in the announcement.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action can be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(432215,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2124,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Methods of Dependent Actions','Methods of Dependent Actions',1202148250,'Rule 2124/5 (Power=1)\nMethods of Dependent Actions\n\n The following methods of dependent actions are defined:\n\n (a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is\n N+1. \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1 Supporter\".\n\n (b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection index\n is N. \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\".\n\n (c) With N Agoran Consent. For this method, the majority index\n is N. \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with \"With 1/2\n Agoran Consent\".\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(432216,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1769,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Holidays','Holidays',1202148250,'Rule 1769/5 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1859 (called 2 January 2008): Rule 1769 does not cause extension\nof voting periods that start before a holiday and end during it.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(432217,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1750,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',1202148250,'Rule 1750/1 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February\n is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the\n ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(432218,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1006,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Offices','Offices',1202148250,'Rule 1006/23 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(432219,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2154,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1202148250,'Rule 2154/5 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an elected office, thus removing any previous holder\n from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided that the nominee\n consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is\n made.\n\n If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as\n above, then any other active player may be nominated for the\n position with eir own consent by announcement, during the\n minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for\n Agoran Consent.\n\n If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting\n nominee, then officeholding cannot be changed by means of this\n Agoran consent (even if consent was achieved), and the IADoP\n SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to\n determine the new officeholder. Until this Agoran decision is\n resolved, the office cannot change hands by the mechanism of\n this rule.\n\n In the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, the\n valid options are the nominees, quorum is the lesser of three\n and the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players,\n and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving\n the decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from the set of\n nominees which each received the largest number of votes; this\n chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the\n valid notice.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt\n to change the holder of that office with Agoran consent was made\n during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such\n attempt in the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if\n consent is achieved. These requirements are waived if another\n player makes such a change during the following quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(432220,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2138,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1202148250,'Rule 2138/3 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(432221,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2143,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Official Reports','Official Reports',1202148250,'Rule 2143/1 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that\n office\'s weekly report, then the holder of that office SHALL\n maintain all such information, and SHALL publish it at least\n once each week. Otherwise, that office has no weekly report.\n\n b) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that\n office\'s monthly report, then the holder of that office SHALL\n maintain all such information, and SHALL publish it at least\n once each month. Otherwise, that office has no monthly\n report.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(432222,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1551,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Ratification','Ratification',1202148250,'Rule 1551/11 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(432223,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2160,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1202148250,'Rule 2160/2 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular position (deputise for that position) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that position, by virtue of\n holding that position, to perform the action (or, if the\n position is vacant, would so require if the position were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that position for the\n purposes of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the position.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008'),(432224,'rcs','00000001.00000700',693,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1202148250,'Rule 693/9 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(432225,'rcs','00000001.00000700',107,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1202148250,'Rule 107/7 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days,\n unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008'),(432226,'rcs','00000001.00000700',683,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1202148250,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more\nvotes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the\nmaking of a false statement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(432227,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2127,'Created by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1202148250,'Rule 2127/0 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006'),(432228,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2168,'Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007','Extending the voting period','Extending the voting period',1202148250,'Rule 2168/0 (Power=1)\nExtending the voting period\n\n Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and\n the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting\n period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided\n this has not already happened for the decision in question.\n\n Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision\n SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who\n have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007'),(432229,'rcs','00000001.00000700',208,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1202148250,'Rule 208/5 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007'),(432230,'rcs','00000001.00000700',955,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1202148250,'Rule 955/11 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the\n voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the\n strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1,\n and greater than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index,\n then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:\n\n (1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to\n the objection index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support\n index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined\n strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to\n the majority index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(432231,'rcs','00000001.00000700',879,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Quorum','Quorum',1202148250,'Rule 879/26 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N, or the decision is whether to\n approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(432232,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2034,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1202148250,'Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any\n existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is\n wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the\n validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be\n validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be\n changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This\n does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.\n\n A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(432233,'rcs','00000001.00000700',106,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1202148250,'Rule 106/10 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007'),(432234,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2153,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Interest Index','Interest Index',1202148250,'Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)\nInterest Index\n\n The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 0 to 3. It\n CAN be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or\n otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be\n proportional to its complexity.\n\n \"Disinterested\" is a synonym for \"interest index 0\". A proposal\n SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited\n to correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(432235,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1607,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1202148250,'Rule 1607/15 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(432236,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1450,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1202148250,'Rule 1450/7 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of promotor and assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(432237,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1698,'Created by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997','The Proposal System Is Protected','The Proposal System Is Protected',1202148250,'Rule 1698/0 (Power=3)\nThe Proposal System Is Protected\n\n It must always be possible to adopt Proposals within a 4 week\n period. Any change to the game state which would result in\n this condition becoming false is cancelled and does not take\n place, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997'),(432238,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1950,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Democratic Proposals','Voting on Democratic Proposals',1202148250,'Rule 1950/19 (Power=3)\nVoting on Democratic Proposals\n\n The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities\n that were active first-class players at the start of its voting\n period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic\n proposal is one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(432239,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2156,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Voting on Ordinary Proposals','Voting on Ordinary Proposals',1202148250,'Rule 2156/4 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Proposals\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting\n limit on ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class\n player is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero.\n BVLOP cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile\n voting limit on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. Changes to VVLOP\n are secured\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir effective\n voting limit on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of\n each week, each player\'s EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to\n an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is\n set to the same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any\n other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s\n EVLOP.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir\n EVLOP at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(432240,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2134,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1202148250,'Rule 2134/3 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary proposal distributed at that time would exceed\n the combined voting limits of all other players on that\n proposal, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition\n of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP, and\n no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder\n of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that\n each player\'s EVLOP is set based on eir VVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432241,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2126,'Amended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1202148250,'Rule 2126/49 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings\n are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit a report within a\n time limit.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2126)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008'),(432242,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2194,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5417 (Murphy; disi.), 30 January 2008','Notes','Notes',1202148250,'Rule 2194/1 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one weekly report during that week gains an E\n Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at\n least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb\n Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (22 January 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2194)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5417 (Murphy; disi.), 30 January 2008'),(432243,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2142,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1202148250,'Rule 2142/3 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, flip a proposal\'s chamber from\n ordinary to democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(432244,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2019,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1202148250,'Rule 2019/12 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the upcoming month. If there are more\n members in one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose\n which members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n proposal in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary proposal in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(432245,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2188,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Proposal','Win by Proposal',1202148250,'Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Proposal\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432246,'rcs','00000001.00000700',991,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1202148250,'Rule 991/10 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(432247,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2175,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1202148250,'Rule 2175/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(432248,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1868,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1202148250,'Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(432249,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1871,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1202148250,'Rule 1871/20 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value\n by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the one-week time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007'),(432250,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2157,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1202148250,'Rule 2157/2 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members, or with the\n majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC.\n The CotC SHOULD consent to a majority action if the panel has\n made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By this\n mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message. A\n judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\n[CFJ 1767 (called 21 October 2007): The agreement of the panel\'s\nmembers referred to in this rule is a state of affairs that does not\nrequire public messages in order to be brought into being.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007'),(432251,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2158,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1202148250,'Rule 2158/2 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL assign an appropriate\n judgement to it as soon as possible. A judgement is valid\n and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. If more than\n one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between\n them is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has the same judge assigned to it, continuously for one week,\n the Clerk of the Courts CAN recuse that judge with cause by\n announcement. When these conditions have all held continuously\n for two weeks, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL so recuse that\n judge as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(432252,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2164,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1202148250,'Rule 2164/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n Judicial cases can generally be transferred between judges by\n this procedure: an entity (the transferee) CAN assign emself as\n the judge of a judicial case by announcement if:\n\n (a) the case has a judge assigned (the transferor); and\n\n (b) the transferor and the transferee are different entities;\n and\n\n (c) the transferor has previously publicly consented to the\n transfer and not publicly withdrawn that consent; and\n\n (d) the transferee is qualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case; and\n\n (e) the transferee immediately (in the same announcement)\n assigns a judgement to a judicial question in the case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007'),(432253,'rcs','00000001.00000700',591,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1202148250,'Rule 591/23 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot take the place\nof a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(432254,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1504,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1202148250,'Rule 1504/21 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.\n When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of\n eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008'),(432255,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2190,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Crime Doesn\'t Pay','Crime Doesn\'t Pay',1202148250,'Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432256,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2169,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1202148250,'Rule 2169/3 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all\n the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit\n arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The\n pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to\n the contract in question by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(432257,'rcs','00000001.00000700',911,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1202148250,'Rule 911/18 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007'),(432258,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2171,'Created by Proposal 5230 (comex), 3 October 2007','Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement','Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement',1202148250,'Rule 2171/0 (Power=1)\nRules Viewed as Binding Agreement\n\n In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were\n a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every\n player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged\n Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding\n agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.\n\n The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima\n facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and\n privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to\n be bound by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): Despite this rule, the rules are\nnot a contract as defined by rule 1742, and cannot be adjudicated as a\nbinding agreement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5230 (comex), 3 October 2007'),(432259,'rcs','00000001.00000700',649,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1202148250,'Rule 649/26 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008'),(432260,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1922,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1202148250,'Rule 1922/22 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(432261,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1367,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Degrees','Degrees',1202148250,'Rule 1367/10 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. The awarding of a degree is a\n secured change\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(432262,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1742,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1202148250,'Rule 1742/12 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008'),(432263,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2178,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1202148250,'Rule 2178/2 (Power=1.5)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one\n of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its members, that the contract be\n public.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008'),(432264,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2173,'Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','The Notary','The Notary',1202148250,'Rule 2173/0 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible\n for keeping track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s report includes\n this information for each public contract.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(432265,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2191,'Created by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Pledges','Pledges',1202148250,'Rule 2191/0 (Power=1.5)\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. The minimum\n number of parties for a pledge is one.\n\n A pledge CAN be modified or terminated by any party without\n objection.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be\na party to a pledge which has exactly one party by announcement, even\nif the text of pledge explicitly permits this.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432266,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2145,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008','Partnerships','Partnerships',1202148250,'Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008'),(432267,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2174,'Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Aliens','Aliens',1202148250,'Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)\nAliens\n\n An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or\n more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an\n alien with one or more registered visas.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(432268,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2136,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Contests','Contests',1202148250,'Rule 2136/17 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A first-class player who is a member of an existing public\n contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as\n the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not\n the contestmaster of another contest. Another first-class\n player who is a member may replace the current contestmaster as\n the sole contestmaster without 3 objections, but only as\n explicitly described in the contest regulations and provided e\n is not the contestmaster of another contest.\n\n The minimum number of parties for a contest is one. Any player\n may make a contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.\n Players SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a\n contest based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432269,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2179,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Points','Points',1202148250,'Rule 2179/1 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432270,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2187,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1202148250,'Rule 2187/0 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s score is set to 0.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432271,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2180,'Created by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Locations','Locations',1202148250,'Rule 2180/0 (Power=1)\nLocations\n\n A location is a public contract that describes itself as a\n location. A person who becomes a party to a location is said to\n move to that location. A person who is a party to a location is\n said to be in that location. A person who ceases to be a party\n to a location is said to leave that location.\n\n A person cannot be in more than a single location at one time.\n A person who moves to a location automatically leaves any\n location e is already in. Whenever a person\'s location does not\n permit em to leave it, e CANNOT move to any other location.\n\n The minimum number of parties for a location is zero.\n\n[CFJ 1877 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be\na party to a location which has exactly one party by announcement,\neven if the text of the location explicitly permits this.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(432272,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2193,'Created by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1202148250,'Rule 2193/0 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432273,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2192,'Created by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1202148250,'Rule 2192/0 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster.\n\n At least once each week, the Mad Scientist SHALL:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one).\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432274,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2135,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Advertising','Advertising',1202148250,'Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(432275,'rcs','00000001.00000700',402,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1202148250,'Rule 402/23 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently won the game.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007'),(432276,'rcs','00000001.00000700',103,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1202148250,'Rule 103/4 (Power=3)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(432277,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2184,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign communications','Foreign communications',1202148250,'Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\n[CFJ 1879 (called 19 January 2008): Canada is not a nomic, because its\nprimary purpose is not enjoyment.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432278,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2148,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1202148250,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(432279,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1202148250,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not\nhave significance under the rules of Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[CFJ 1821 (called 4 December 2007): A nonsensical word does not\nconstitute a description of an action that could hypothetically be\nperformed on behalf of Agora.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(432280,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2189,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Extortion','Win by Extortion',1202148250,'Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Extortion\n\n Upon a player acting on behalf of Agora to award a win to one or\n more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Extortion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(432281,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1202148250,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): A human is not a nomic.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432282,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2147,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1202148250,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(432283,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2159,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1202148250,'Rule 2159/2 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(432284,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1202148250,'Rule 2105/3 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(432285,'rcs','00000001.00000700',1727,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1202148250,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known\n unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,\n until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\n BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Unbirthday is defined to\n be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,\n since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire\n days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(432286,'rcs','00000001.00000700',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',1202148250,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael\nNorrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present\ntime.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(432287,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1202148250,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(432288,'rcs','00000001.00000700',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1202148250,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\n[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not\nnecessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(432289,'rcs','00000001.00000701',478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1202156532,'Rule 478/22 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007'),(432290,'rcs','00000001.00000702',2196,'Created by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions',1202171942,'Rule 2196/0 (Power=3)\nStandard Classes of Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or\n democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater\n than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision\n with an adoption index is ordinary by default.\n\n If an Agoran decision has an adoption index, the message by\n which it is initiated MUST include the following information:\n\n a) Its adoption index.\n b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n\n For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available\n options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432291,'rcs','00000001.00000702',955,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1202171942,'Rule 955/12 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting\n index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:\n\n (1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to\n the objection index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support\n index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined\n strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to\n the majority index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432292,'rcs','00000001.00000702',106,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1202171942,'Rule 106/11 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432293,'rcs','00000001.00000702',1607,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1202171942,'Rule 1607/16 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432294,'rcs','00000001.00000702',1950,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Voting on Democratic Decisions','Voting on Democratic Decisions',1202171942,'Rule 1950/20 (Power=3)\nVoting on Democratic Decisions\n\n The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities\n that were active first-class players at the start of its voting\n period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic\n decision is one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432295,'rcs','00000001.00000702',2156,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1202171942,'Rule 2156/5 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting\n limit on ordinary decisions (BVLOD). The BVLOD of a first-class\n player is four, and the BVLOD of any other player is zero.\n BVLOD cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. Changes to VVLOD\n are secured\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir effective\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir EVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. At the end of\n each week, each player\'s EVLOD is set to eir VVLOD, rounded to\n an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOD is\n set to the same rounded value. EVLOD cannot be modified by any\n other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s\n EVLOD.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n EVLOD at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432296,'rcs','00000001.00000702',2134,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1202171942,'Rule 2134/4 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD, and\n no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder\n of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that\n each player\'s EVLOD is set based on eir VVLOD.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432297,'rcs','00000001.00000702',2142,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1202171942,'Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be\n democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432298,'rcs','00000001.00000702',2019,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1202171942,'Rule 2019/13 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the upcoming month. If there are more\n members in one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose\n which members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(432299,'rcs','00000001.00000703',1742,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1202172050,'Rule 1742/13 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any person or group of persons may create an agreement with the\n intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the\n rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract. A contract\n may be modified, including changing the set of parties, by\n agreement between all parties. A contract may also terminate by\n agreement between all parties. A contract automatically\n terminates if the number of parties to it falls below the\n minimum number of parties defined by the rules for that\n contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number of\n parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008'),(432300,'rcs','00000001.00000704',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1202226485,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without\nsurrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate\nanything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the\nURI.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI\nby default have no significance other than their functional role as\npart of the URI.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(432301,'rcs','00000001.00000704',2160,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1202226485,'Rule 2160/2 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular position (deputise for that position) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that position, by virtue of\n holding that position, to perform the action (or, if the\n position is vacant, would so require if the position were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that position for the\n purposes of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the position.\n\n[CFJ 1896 (called 3 February 2008): A \"position\" in rule 2160 is not\nrestricted to being an office; judgeship is also a type of position.]\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008'),(432302,'rcs','00000001.00000705',1742,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1202248976,'Rule 1742/13 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any person or group of persons may create an agreement with the\n intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the\n rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract. A contract\n may be modified, including changing the set of parties, by\n agreement between all parties. A contract may also terminate by\n agreement between all parties. A contract automatically\n terminates if the number of parties to it falls below the\n minimum number of parties defined by the rules for that\n contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number of\n parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008'),(432303,'rcs','00000001.00000706',1742,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Contracts','Contracts',1202314808,'Rule 1742/14 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules. Any\n agreement made by one or more persons with the intention that it\n be binding on them and governed by the rules is a contract\n (unless it would automatically terminate as a contract).\n\n A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to\n it falls below the number of parties the rules require for the\n contract. If other rules do not specify such a number for a\n contract, then a contract requires at least two parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432304,'rcs','00000001.00000706',2197,'Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Defining Contract Changes','Defining Contract Changes',1202314808,'Rule 2197/0 (Power=1.5)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or the its permissability\n cannot be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted,\n then that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432305,'rcs','00000001.00000706',2198,'Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Making Contract Changes','Making Contract Changes',1202314808,'Rule 2198/0 (Power=1.5)\nMaking Contract Changes\n\n If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to\n it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using\n that mechanism.\n \n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n \n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection if, before the dependant action is resolved, no party\n blocks the change by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432306,'rcs','00000001.00000706',2191,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Pledges','Pledges',1202314808,'Rule 2191/2 (Power=1.5)\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be\na party to a pledge which has exactly one party by announcement, even\nif the text of pledge explicitly permits this.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432307,'rcs','00000001.00000706',2136,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Contests','Contests',1202314808,'Rule 2136/18 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A first-class player who is a member of an existing public\n contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as\n the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not\n the contestmaster of another contest. Another first-class\n player who is a member may replace the current contestmaster as\n the sole contestmaster without 3 objections, but only as\n explicitly described in the contest regulations and provided e\n is not the contestmaster of another contest.\n\n A contest requires at least one party. Any player may make a\n contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections. Players\n SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a contest\n based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432308,'rcs','00000001.00000706',2180,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Locations','Locations',1202314808,'Rule 2180/1 (Power=1)\nLocations\n\n A location is a public contract that describes itself as a\n location. A person who becomes a party to a location is said to\n move to that location. A person who is a party to a location is\n said to be in that location. A person who ceases to be a party\n to a location is said to leave that location.\n\n A person cannot be in more than a single location at one time.\n A person who moves to a location automatically leaves any\n location e is already in. Whenever a person\'s location does not\n permit em to leave it, e CANNOT move to any other location.\n\n A location requires at least zero parties.\n\n[CFJ 1877 (called 18 January 2008): It is not possible to cease to be\na party to a location which has exactly one party by announcement,\neven if the text of the location explicitly permits this.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432309,'rcs','00000001.00000707',2199,'Created by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1202315254,'Rule 2199/0 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings\n are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit a report within a\n time limit.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432310,'rcs','00000001.00000707',2126,'Amended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008','Notes','Notes',1202315254,'Rule 2126/50 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one weekly report during that week gains an E\n Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who published at\n least one monthly report during that month gains an Eb\n Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432311,'rcs','00000001.00000708',591,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1202315451,'Rule 591/24 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008'),(432312,'rcs','00000001.00000709',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1202435207,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\n[CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an\nobilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because \"Marvy\" is\ncurrently undefined.]\n\n[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not\nnecessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(432313,'rcs','00000001.00000710',591,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1202435485,'Rule 591/24 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008'),(432314,'rcs','00000001.00000711',2127,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1203463437,'Rule 2127/1 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; SUPPORT and OBJECT are\n opposites; PRESENT is its own opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008'),(432315,'rcs','00000001.00000712',2158,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1203463519,'Rule 2158/3 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has the same judge assigned to it, continuously for one week,\n the Clerk of the Courts CAN recuse that judge with cause by\n announcement. When these conditions have all held continuously\n for two weeks, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL so recuse that\n judge as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008'),(432316,'rcs','00000001.00000713',649,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1203463633,'Rule 649/26 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008'),(432317,'rcs','00000001.00000713',402,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1203463633,'Rule 402/24 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008'),(432318,'rcs','00000001.00000714',2019,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1203463720,'Rule 2019/14 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement.\n If there are more members in one set than the other, then e\n SHALL randomly choose which members of the larger set take part\n in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008'),(432319,'rcs','00000001.00000715',2198,'Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Making Contract Changes','Making Contract Changes',1203463743,'Rule 2198/0 (Power=1.5)\nMaking Contract Changes\n\n If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to\n it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using\n that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection if, before the dependant action is resolved, no party\n blocks the change by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432320,'rcs','00000001.00000716',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1203526814,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(432321,'rcs','00000001.00000716',991,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1203526814,'Rule 991/10 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(432322,'rcs','00000001.00000716',1922,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1203526814,'Rule 1922/23 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or\n the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to\n any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008'),(432323,'rcs','00000001.00000717',2193,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1203527273,'Rule 2193/1 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008'),(432324,'rcs','00000001.00000718',1504,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1203527531,'Rule 1504/22 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.\n When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of\n eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008'),(432325,'rcs','00000001.00000718',2169,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1203527531,'Rule 2169/4 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all\n the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit\n arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The\n pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the\n contract in question by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008'),(432326,'rcs','00000001.00000718',911,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1203527531,'Rule 911/19 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008'),(432327,'rcs','00000001.00000719',649,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1203527729,'Rule 649/27 (Power=1.5)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(432328,'rcs','00000001.00000719',1367,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Degrees','Degrees',1203527729,'Rule 1367/11 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(432329,'rcs','00000001.00000720',2157,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1203527872,'Rule 2157/3 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members, or (if the\n CotC is not a member) with the majority agreement of the members\n and the consent of the CotC. The CotC SHOULD consent to a\n majority action if the panel has made a reasonable effort to\n achieve consensus. By this mechanism a judicial panel can act,\n in situations where the rules state that an action is performed\n by sending a message.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\n[CFJ 1767 (called 21 October 2007): The agreement of the panel\'s\nmembers referred to in this rule is a state of affairs that does not\nrequire public messages in order to be brought into being.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008'),(432330,'rcs','00000001.00000721',2193,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1203958271,'Rule 2193/2 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008'),(432331,'rcs','00000001.00000722',2170,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1203959196,'Rule 2170/1 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n A public message\'s claim as to who published it is\n self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a\n challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has\n been issued within one month before its publication.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is\n the executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(432332,'rcs','00000001.00000722',1728,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1203959196,'Rule 1728/18 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n A player CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action)\n if and only if the Rules explicitly authorize the player to\n perform the action by one of the following methods:\n\n - Without N Objections, where N is a nonnegative integer;\n - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or\n - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum of 1.0.\n\n The phrase \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\"; the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\"; the phrase \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with\n \"With 1.0 Agoran Consent\".\n\n A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the\n initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so,\n unambiguously describing both the action and the method,\n including the required value for N. A player (the performer)\n CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent\n action by announcement, if and only if all of the following are\n true:\n\n (a) the time elapsed since the announcement of intent is no more\n than fourteen days, and (if the action is to be performed\n Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four\n days;\n\n (b) either the performer was the initiator, or the initiator was\n authorized to perform the action by virtue of holding a\n rules-defined position and the performer is the holder of\n that position when e attempts to perform the action; and\n\n (c) At the time the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with\n the announced intent, as described elsewhere.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(432333,'rcs','00000001.00000722',2124,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1203959196,'Rule 2124/6 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a\n dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players\n to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(432334,'rcs','00000001.00000722',107,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1203959196,'Rule 107/8 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(432335,'rcs','00000001.00000722',955,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1203959196,'Rule 955/13 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting\n index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(432336,'rcs','00000001.00000722',879,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Quorum','Quorum',1203959196,'Rule 879/27 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(432337,'rcs','00000001.00000723',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1203959816,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (25 February 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOD (rule 2156)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(432338,'rcs','00000001.00000724',2200,'Created by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1203961397,'Rule 2200/0 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\n\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name\n of \"Agora\" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any\n nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.\n\n A province is a protectorate that is registered as a player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008'),(432339,'rcs','00000001.00000724',2184,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign communications','Foreign communications',1203961397,'Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432340,'rcs','00000001.00000724',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1203961397,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(432341,'rcs','00000001.00000725',2156,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1203961516,'Rule 2156/6 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting\n limit on ordinary decisions (BVLOD). The BVLOD of a first-class\n player is four, the BVLOD of a province is four, and the BVLOD\n of any other player is zero. BVLOD cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. Changes to VVLOD\n are secured\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir effective\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir EVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. At the end of\n each week, each player\'s EVLOD is set to eir VVLOD, rounded to\n an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOD is\n set to the same rounded value. EVLOD cannot be modified by any\n other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s\n EVLOD.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n EVLOD at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008'),(432342,'rcs','00000001.00000726',208,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1204145840,'Rule 208/6 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008'),(432343,'rcs','00000001.00000727',2110,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1204734698,'Rule 2110/5 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of\n a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.\n\n Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a\n tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,\n the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this\n Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other\n tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008'),(432344,'rcs','00000001.00000728',2154,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1204734842,'Rule 2154/6 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an elected office, thus removing any previous holder\n from the office, with Agoran Consent and the nominee\'s consent;\n this process is known as installation.\n\n If, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action\n defined for Agoran Consent, another active player is nominated\n in this way and consents, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as\n possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the\n election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via\n installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players,\n and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving\n the decision, the IADoP will select a candidate that received at\n least as many votes as any other candidate; this candidate\n thereby becomes the officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt\n to install a player into that office was made during that\n quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such attempt\n during the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if\n possible; however, these requirements are waived if another\n player makes such a change during the following quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(432345,'rcs','00000001.00000728',2138,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1204734842,'Rule 2138/3 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(432346,'rcs','00000001.00000729',2154,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1204735287,'Rule 2154/7 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an elected office, thus removing any previous holder\n from the office, with Agoran Consent and the nominee\'s consent;\n this process is known as installation.\n\n If, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action\n defined for Agoran Consent, another active player is nominated\n in this way and consents, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as\n possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the\n election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via\n installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate; this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt\n to install a player into that office was made during that\n quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such attempt\n during the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if\n possible; however, these requirements are waived if another\n player makes such a change during the following quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(432347,'rcs','00000001.00000729',2137,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','The Assessor','The Assessor',1204735287,'Rule 2137/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report EVLOD (rule 2156)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(432348,'rcs','00000001.00000729',208,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1204735287,'Rule 208/7 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(432349,'rcs','00000001.00000729',106,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1204735287,'Rule 106/12 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(432350,'rcs','00000001.00000730',107,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1204735493,'Rule 107/9 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(432351,'rcs','00000001.00000730',2196,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions',1204735493,'Rule 2196/1 (Power=3)\nStandard Classes of Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or\n democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater\n than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision\n with an adoption index is ordinary by default.\n\n If an Agoran decision has an adoption index, then the following\n are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its adoption index.\n b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n\n For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available\n options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(432352,'rcs','00000001.00000731',2166,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Assets','Assets',1205273730,'Rule 2166/2 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nBank upon creation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. A CFJ on this is probably imminent.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(432353,'rcs','00000001.00000732',2166,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Assets','Assets',1205286561,'Rule 2166/2 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nBank upon creation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 1914.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(432354,'rcs','00000001.00000733',2160,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1205367569,'Rule 2160/3 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(432355,'rcs','00000001.00000734',1871,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1205367655,'Rule 1871/21 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value\n by announcement. Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the one-week time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008'),(432356,'rcs','00000001.00000735',1607,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1205368384,'Rule 1607/17 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(432357,'rcs','00000001.00000736',1551,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification','Ratification',1205368773,'Rule 1551/12 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n Ratifying a public document is secured.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(432358,'rcs','00000001.00000736',2202,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',1205368773,'Rule 2202/0 (Power=3)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(432359,'rcs','00000001.00000736',2201,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Self-Ratification','Self-Ratification',1205368773,'Rule 2201/0 (Power=3)\nSelf-Ratification\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(432360,'rcs','00000001.00000737',1551,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification','Ratification',1205369056,'Rule 1551/12 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n Ratifying a public document is secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(432361,'rcs','00000001.00000738',2193,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1205937544,'Rule 2193/3 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008'),(432362,'rcs','00000001.00000739',2019,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1205937690,'Rule 2019/15 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent\n title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose which\n members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008'),(432363,'rcs','00000001.00000740',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1205937835,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432364,'rcs','00000001.00000740',2158,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1205937835,'Rule 2158/4 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has the same judge assigned to it, continuously for one week,\n the Clerk of the Courts CAN recuse that judge with cause by\n announcement. When these conditions have all held continuously\n for two weeks, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL so recuse that\n judge as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432365,'rcs','00000001.00000741',2164,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1205937941,'Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432366,'rcs','00000001.00000742',911,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1205938117,'Rule 911/20 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered\n open again\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior\n case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered\n open again\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432367,'rcs','00000001.00000743',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1205938841,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 March 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432368,'rcs','00000001.00000743',1871,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1205938841,'Rule 1871/22 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a player with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the one-week time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432369,'rcs','00000001.00000743',2204,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Linked Assignments','Linked Assignments',1205938841,'Rule 2204/0 (Power=1.5)\nLinked Assignments\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts assigns a player as judge of two or\n more judicial cases consecutively in the same announcement, that\n player only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules\n to the contrary notwithstanding. The CotC SHOULD NOT do this\n unless those cases are closely related in their subject matter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432370,'rcs','00000001.00000743',2203,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Hawkishness','Hawkishness',1205938841,'Rule 2203/0 (Power=1.5)\nHawkishness\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts, with the following values:\n\n * Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any inquiry case.\n\n * Hugging. Hugging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be\n assigned as judge of any equity case.\n\n * Hemming-and-Hawing (default).\n\n Changes to hawkishness are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432371,'rcs','00000001.00000745',591,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1206501149,'Rule 591/25 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008'),(432372,'rcs','00000001.00000746',1871,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1206501438,'Rule 1871/23 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a player with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely fashion.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008'),(432373,'rcs','00000001.00000746',2158,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1206501438,'Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008'),(432374,'rcs','00000001.00000747',2166,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008','Assets','Assets',1206501805,'Rule 2166/3 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely\n because its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nBank upon creation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 1914.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008'),(432375,'rcs','00000001.00000748',2150,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1206934575,'Rule 2150/3 (Power=2)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(432376,'rcs','00000001.00000748',2166,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Assets','Assets',1206934575,'Rule 2166/4 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely\n because its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nBank upon creation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 1914.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(432377,'rcs','00000001.00000748',1450,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1206934575,'Rule 1450/8 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(432378,'rcs','00000001.00000748',591,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1206934575,'Rule 591/26 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(432379,'rcs','00000001.00000749',2181,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1207145436,'Rule 2181/1 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor. While there are no such\n assets, the Accountor has no report.\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008'),(432380,'rcs','00000001.00000750',2192,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1207145492,'Rule 2192/1 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster.\n\n At least once each week, the Mad Scientist SHALL:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one). This proposal counts as the Mad\n Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008'),(432381,'rcs','00000001.00000751',1769,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008','Holidays','Holidays',1207145674,'Rule 1769/6 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the\n time limit for a player to perform an action) upon the time of\n another event, and\n\n a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at\n which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose\n of determining the time of the future event.\n\n b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the\n future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008'),(432382,'rcs','00000001.00000752',2199,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1208289409,'Rule 2199/1 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings\n are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(432383,'rcs','00000001.00000752',2143,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1208289409,'Rule 2143/2 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,\n and the publication of all such information is part of that\n office\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each month. If any information is defined\n by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then\n the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such\n information, and the publication of all such information is\n part of that office\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(432384,'rcs','00000001.00000752',1607,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1208289409,'Rule 1607/18 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution\n of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the\n beginning of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(432385,'rcs','00000001.00000752',2126,'Amended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Notes','Notes',1208289409,'Rule 2126/51 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(432386,'rcs','00000001.00000752',2192,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1208289409,'Rule 2192/2 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster.\n\n The Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one). This proposal counts as the Mad\n Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(432387,'rcs','00000001.00000753',2205,'Created by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008','Judicial Arguments and Evidence','Judicial Arguments and Evidence',1208289748,'Rule 2205/0 (Power=1)\nJudicial Arguments and Evidence\n\n Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD\n present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)\n relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:\n\n 1) The initiator, when initiating the case.\n\n 2) For a criminal case, the defendant, during the pre-trial\n phase.\n\n 3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question,\n during the pre-trial phase.\n\n 4) The judge, when delivering judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008'),(432388,'rcs','00000001.00000754',2154,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1209336789,'Rule 2154/8 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an elected office, thus removing any previous holder\n from the office, with Agoran Consent and the nominee\'s consent;\n this process is known as installation.\n\n If, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action\n defined for Agoran Consent, another active player is nominated\n in this way and consents, then the IADoP SHALL as soon as\n possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the\n election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via\n installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate; this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the\n following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of\n that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous\n quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes\n such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after\n the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement\n is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during\n that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(432389,'rcs','00000001.00000755',1504,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1209336878,'Rule 1504/23 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.\n When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of\n eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(432390,'rcs','00000001.00000756',2192,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1209336986,'Rule 2192/3 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of\n the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and\n SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster\n fulfills all of its duties.\n\n The Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one). This proposal counts as the Mad\n Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.\n\n[Cross-references (23 April 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * act on behalf of the monster to fulfill its duties (rule 2192)\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008'),(432391,'rcs','00000001.00000758',2166,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Assets','Assets',1209337280,'Rule 2166/5 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely\n because its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 1914.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(432392,'rcs','00000001.00000759',2154,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1209337398,'Rule 2154/9 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an elected office, thus removing any previous holder\n from the office, with Agoran Consent and the nominee\'s consent;\n this process is known as installation.\n\n If, during the minimum waiting period between intent and action\n defined for Agoran Consent, at least two active players are\n nominated in this way and consent, then the IADoP SHALL as soon\n as possible initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder; this process is known as election. Until the\n election is resolved, the office CANNOT change hands via\n installation, the remainder of this rule notwithstanding.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate; this candidate thereby becomes the officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under the\n following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of\n that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous\n quarter. This requirement is waived if another player makes\n such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after\n the office ceases to have an active holder. This requirement\n is waived if the office comes to have an active holder during\n that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008'),(432393,'rcs','00000001.00000760',2157,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1209337502,'Rule 2157/4 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members, or (if\n the CotC is not a member) with the Support of at least half the\n other members and the Support of the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so\n Support a majority action if the panel has made a reasonable\n effort to achieve consensus. By this mechanism a judicial panel\n can act, in situations where the rules state that an action is\n performed by sending a message.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008'),(432394,'rcs','00000001.00000761',2154,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1209337594,'Rule 2154/10 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an Office, this begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved.\n A player who has not refused eir nomination is a consenting\n candidate.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if\n there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em\n in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more\n consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran\n decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known\n as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no nomination\n period began for that office during that quarter, then the IADoP\n SHALL make at least one nomination for the office during the\n following quarter. These requirements are waived if another\n player so makes a nomination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008'),(432395,'rcs','00000001.00000762',1871,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1209339328,'Rule 1871/24 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e SHALL\n flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely\n fashion.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008'),(432396,'rcs','00000001.00000763',2193,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1209339345,'Rule 2193/4 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008'),(432397,'rcs','00000001.00000764',2197,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008','Defining Contract Changes','Defining Contract Changes',1209339441,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=1.5)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008'),(432398,'rcs','00000001.00000764',2198,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008','Making Contract Changes','Making Contract Changes',1209339441,'Rule 2198/1 (Power=1.5)\nMaking Contract Changes\n\n If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to\n it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using\n that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection if, before the dependent action is resolved, no party\n blocks the change by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008'),(432399,'rcs','00000001.00000765',2154,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1210547057,'Rule 2154/11 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved.\n A player who has not refused eir nomination is a consenting\n candidate.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if\n there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em\n in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more\n consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran\n decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known\n as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no nomination\n period began for that office during that quarter, then the IADoP\n SHALL make at least one nomination for the office during the\n following quarter. These requirements are waived if another\n player so makes a nomination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008'),(432400,'rcs','00000001.00000766',2124,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1210547231,'Rule 2124/7 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a\n dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players\n to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008'),(432401,'rcs','00000001.00000767',2127,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1210547291,'Rule 2127/1 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own\n opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008'),(432402,'rcs','00000001.00000768',2169,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1210547370,'Rule 2169/5 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the\n contract in question by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008'),(432403,'rcs','00000001.00000769',2191,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Pledges','Pledges',1210547459,'Rule 2191/2 (Power=1.5)\nPledges\n\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008'),(432404,'rcs','00000001.00000770',2127,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1210547554,'Rule 2127/2 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own\n opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008'),(432405,'rcs','00000001.00000771',2181,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1212158178,'Rule 2181/2 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.\n\n The Accountor\'s report includes a list of classes of assets and\n their backing documents and recordkeepors.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose\n backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008'),(432406,'rcs','00000001.00000772',2150,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1212158258,'Rule 2150/3 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(432407,'rcs','00000001.00000773',2126,'Amended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008','Notes','Notes',1212158344,'Rule 2126/52 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOP by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOP by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008'),(432408,'rcs','00000001.00000774',2136,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008','Contests','Contests',1212158482,'Rule 2136/19 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A first-class player who is a member of an existing public\n contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as\n the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not\n the contestmaster of another contest. Another first-class\n player who is a member may replace the current contestmaster as\n the sole contestmaster without 3 objections, but only as\n explicitly described in the contest regulations and provided e\n is not the contestmaster of another contest.\n\n A contest requires at least one party. Any player may make a\n contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections. Players\n SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a contest\n based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008'),(432409,'rcs','00000001.00000775',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1212158650,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)\n * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(432410,'rcs','00000001.00000775',2193,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1212158650,'Rule 2193/5 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(432411,'rcs','00000001.00000776',2138,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1212158714,'Rule 2138/4 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(432412,'rcs','00000001.00000777',1006,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008','Offices','Offices',1212158777,'Rule 1006/24 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an office CAN resign it by announcement, causing\n it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an office\n becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least\n one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if\n another player so makes a nomination.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008'),(432413,'rcs','00000001.00000778',2200,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1212637779,'Rule 2200/1 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\n\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name\n of \"Agora\" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any\n nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.\n\n A province is a protectorate that is a player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008'),(432414,'rcs','00000001.00000779',2187,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1212637913,'Rule 2187/1 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index without objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(432415,'rcs','00000001.00000780',2205,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','Judicial Arguments and Evidence','Judicial Arguments and Evidence',1212637975,'Rule 2205/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Arguments and Evidence\n\n Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD\n present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)\n relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:\n\n 1) The initiator, when initiating the case.\n\n 2) For a criminal case, the defendant, during the pre-trial\n phase.\n\n 3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question,\n during the pre-trial phase.\n\n 4) The judge, when delivering judgement.\n\n Matters of legal interpretation SHOULD be classified as\n arguments; matters of fact SHOULD be classified as evidence.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(432416,'rcs','00000001.00000781',2181,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1212638047,'Rule 2181/3 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor. If any such assets exist,\n then the Accountor\'s report includes a list of their backing\n documents; otherwise, the Accountor has no report.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose\n backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(432417,'rcs','00000001.00000782',1006,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008','Offices','Offices',1213241760,'Rule 1006/25 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an\n elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL\n make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is\n waived if another player so makes a nomination.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008'),(432418,'rcs','00000001.00000783',478,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Fora','Fora',1213241972,'Rule 478/23 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(432419,'rcs','00000001.00000783',2152,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1213241972,'Rule 2152/4 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n persons in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified person(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the\n rule in question.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(432420,'rcs','00000001.00000783',1769,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Holidays','Holidays',1213241972,'Rule 1769/7 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the\n time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event,\n and\n\n a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at\n which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose\n of determining the time of the future event.\n\n b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the\n future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require events to be\n performed before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(432421,'rcs','00000001.00000784',2125,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1213242134,'Rule 2125/2 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if:\n\n a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n b) It is ILLEGAL.\n\n c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which\n some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action\n CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the\n rules.\n\n f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and\n has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(432422,'rcs','00000001.00000784',1698,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Agora Is a Nomic','Agora Is a Nomic',1213242134,'Rule 1698/1 (Power=3)\nAgora Is a Nomic\n\n In the interest of safeguarding Agora\'s nomic-ness, if a change\n to the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make\n arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a\n four-week period by any combinations of actions by players, then\n that change is canceled and does not occur, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997\nRetitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(432423,'rcs','00000001.00000785',2206,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Foreign Trade','Foreign Trade',1213242529,'Rule 2206/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Trade\n\n A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a\n foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon\n as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the\n announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.\n\n The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt\n legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable\n foreign assets.\n\n Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign\n exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(432424,'rcs','00000001.00000785',2207,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Trade Embargo','Trade Embargo',1213242529,'Rule 2207/0 (Power=1)\nTrade Embargo\n\n A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its\n Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(432425,'rcs','00000001.00000786',2193,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1213472184,'Rule 2193/6 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008'),(432426,'rcs','00000001.00000787',2193,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1214155740,'Rule 2193/7 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008'),(432427,'rcs','00000001.00000788',1728,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1214155828,'Rule 1728/19 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n A player CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action)\n if and only if the Rules explicitly authorize the player to\n perform the action by one of the following methods:\n\n - Without N Objections, where N is a nonnegative integer;\n - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or\n - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum of 1.0.\n\n The phrase \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\"; the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\"; the phrase \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with\n \"With 1.0 Agoran Consent\".\n\n A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the\n initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so,\n unambiguously describing both the action and the method,\n including the required value for N. A player (the performer)\n CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent\n action by announcement, if and only if all of the following are\n true:\n\n (a) the time elapsed since the announcement of intent is no more\n than fourteen days, and (if the action is to be performed\n Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four\n days;\n\n (b) either the performer was the initiator, or the action\n depends on support and the performer has supported the\n action and the rule allowing the action to be performed\n dependently does not explicitly prohibit supporters from\n performing it, or the initiator was authorized to perform\n the action by virtue of holding a rules-defined position and\n the performer is the holder of that position when e attempts\n to perform the action; and\n\n (c) At the time the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with\n the announced intent, as described elsewhere.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008'),(432428,'rcs','00000001.00000789',2193,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1214156321,'Rule 2193/8 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008'),(432429,'rcs','00000001.00000790',2126,'Amended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008','Notes','Notes',1214156887,'Rule 2126/53 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008'),(432430,'rcs','00000001.00000791',2126,'Amended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008','Notes','Notes',1214157194,'Rule 2126/54 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Notes are gained as follows:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008'),(432431,'rcs','00000001.00000792',2173,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008','The Notary','The Notary',1214157262,'Rule 2173/1 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible\n for keeping track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s report includes\n this information for each public contract.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008'),(432432,'rcs','00000001.00000793',2157,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1214157426,'Rule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members, or\n (unless the CotC is a member of the panel, the prior judge, or\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the\n Support of at least half the other members and the Support of\n the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support a majority action if the\n panel has made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By\n this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008'),(432433,'rcs','00000001.00000794',2126,'Amended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008','Notes','Notes',1214157539,'Rule 2126/55 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008'),(432434,'rcs','00000001.00000795',2208,'Created by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008','Clarity of Announcements','Clarity of Announcements',1214157784,'Rule 2208/0 (Power=3)\nClarity of Announcements\n\n All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if the\n action is not unambiguously specified. This rule takes\n precedence over all rules that allow performance of an action by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008'),(432435,'rcs','00000001.00000796',2187,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1215049221,'Rule 2187/2 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008'),(432436,'rcs','00000001.00000797',1922,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1215049302,'Rule 1922/24 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n any player who wins the game and does not already bear the\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or\n the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to\n any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008'),(432437,'rcs','00000001.00000798',2209,'Created by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,','Agoran Welcoming Committee','Agoran Welcoming Committee',1215049963,'Rule 2209/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Welcoming Committee\n\n The Greeter is an imposed office.\n\n While a partnership named \"Welcoming Committee\" exists, and its\n obligations include all of the following:\n\n a) Greet all new players.\n\n b) Engage in contact with new players to assist them.\n\n c) Engage in contact with new players to ensure a positive\n experience.\n\n then this office is imposed upon that partnership. Otherwise,\n this office is vacant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,\n Murphy), 29 June 2008'),(432438,'rcs','00000001.00000799',2136,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008','Contests','Contests',1215050145,'Rule 2136/20 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n\n Any player CAN flip the contestmaster of a public contract\n without 3 objections, except if doing so would cause a player to\n be contestmaster of more than one contest, or it would flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly\n consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player\n intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this\n is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that\n contract.)\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008'),(432439,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2193,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008','The Monster','The Monster',1215386814,'Rule 2193/9 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008'),(497290,'rcs','00000001.00000905',2223,'Created by Proposal 5982 (Murphy), 29 November 2008','Win by Junta','Win by Junta',1228006609,'Rule 2223/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Junta\n\n When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it\n to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those\n persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Those persons SHALL as soon as possible\n amend the rule so that it no longer states this, and SHOULD\n amend the rules to prevent this condition from being achieved\n again in essentially the same way.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5982 (Murphy), 29 November 2008'),(472077,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2125,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1215386814,'Rule 2125/2 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if:\n\n a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n b) It is ILLEGAL.\n\n c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which\n some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action\n CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the\n rules.\n\n f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and\n has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(472078,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1586,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1215386814,'Rule 1586/3 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still\n define that entity but with different properties, then that\n entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent\n is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(472079,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1688,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Power','Power',1215386814,'Rule 1688/4 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\n A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)\n thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as\n allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n change\'s power threshold. This threshold defaults to the\n securing rule\'s power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that\n rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(472080,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2140,'Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Power Controls Mutability','Power Controls Mutability',1215386814,'Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)\nPower Controls Mutability\n\n No entity with power below the power of this rule can\n\n (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.\n\n (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than\n its own.\n\n (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with\n power greater than its own. A \"substantive\" aspect of\n an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument\'s\n operation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(472081,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2149,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1215386814,'Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes\n that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of rule 2149 can occur\nwithout any intent to misdirect.]\n\n[CFJ 1887 (called 30 January 2008): Publicly making the statement\n\"This statement is a lie.\" would most likely be a violation of rule\n2149, because it is logically indeterminate and so making it would not\nbe telling the truth, and its logical indeterminacy would be\nunderstood by any reasonable player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(472082,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2186,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Victory','Victory',1215386814,'Rule 2186/0 (Power=2)\nVictory\n\n Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions exist only as defined\n by rules. Defining these things is secured.\n\n A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled\n as a win announcement.\n\n When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition\n and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win\n the game. This is the only way to win the game, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup\n procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from\n essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win\n the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one\n of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(472083,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2110,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1215386814,'Rule 2110/5 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of\n a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising\n from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of\n that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.\n\n Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a\n tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,\n the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning\n Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt\n to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this\n Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other\n tortoise that was linked to it in assignment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008'),(472084,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2199,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Ribbons','Ribbons',1215386814,'Rule 2199/1 (Power=2)\nRibbons\n\n Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. Changes to Ribbon holdings\n are secured. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players.\n\n Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names\n are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of\n Ribbon is a currency.\n\n The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of\n Ribbons.\n\n Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already\n possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least\n one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one\n office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon,\n unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time\n limit during that month.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan\n Ribbon.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon,\n unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement\n within a time limit.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first\n time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person\n has been a player continuously for at least three months,\n was never a player before that period, and names another\n first-class player as eir mentor (and has not named a\n mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White\n Ribbon.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n an Ultraviolet Ribbon.\n\n (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet\n Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award.\n\n (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo\n Ribbon.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon.\n\n If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for\n Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color\n in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Renaissance.\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(472085,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2177,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1215386814,'Rule 2177/5 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any player who is a member of the roll call is a\n senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of the\n most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007'),(472086,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2141,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1215386814,'Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(472087,'rcs','00000001.00000800',217,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Interpreting the Rules','Interpreting the Rules',1215386814,'Rule 217/6 (Power=3)\nInterpreting the Rules\n\n When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules\n takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or\n unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,\n past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the\n game.\n\n[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need\nnot necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or\nJustices given in past CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(472088,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1215386814,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.]\n\n[CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time\nof Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule\nof higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English\nmeaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does\nmust be decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(472089,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1030,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1215386814,'Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(472090,'rcs','00000001.00000800',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1215386814,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(472091,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1215386814,'Rule 1681/12 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(472092,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1051,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1215386814,'Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(472093,'rcs','00000001.00000800',869,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1215386814,'Rule 869/25 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(472094,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2144,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1215386814,'Rule 2144/8 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(472095,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1215386814,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (472096,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1215386814,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(472097,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2130,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Activity','Activity',1215386814,'Rule 2130/9 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(472098,'rcs','00000001.00000800',478,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Fora','Fora',1215386814,'Rule 478/23 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(472099,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2208,'Created by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008','Clarity of Announcements','Clarity of Announcements',1215386814,'Rule 2208/0 (Power=3)\nClarity of Announcements\n\n All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if the\n action is not unambiguously specified. This rule takes\n precedence over all rules that allow performance of an action by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008'),(472100,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2170,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1215386814,'Rule 2170/1 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n A public message\'s claim as to who published it is\n self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a\n challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has\n been issued within one month before its publication.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is\n the executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(472101,'rcs','00000001.00000800',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without\nsurrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate\nanything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the\nURI.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI\nby default have no significance other than their functional role as\npart of the URI.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(472102,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2152,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1215386814,'Rule 2152/4 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n persons in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified person(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the\n rule in question.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(472103,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1023,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 1023/23 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(472104,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2161,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1215386814,'Rule 2161/2 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(472105,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2146,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Indices','Indices',1215386814,'Rule 2146/1 (Power=2)\nIndices\n\n Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a\n total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum\n element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called\n positive infinity or unanimity.\n\n The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The\n ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The\n ratio of zero to any index is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(472106,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2162,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Switches','Switches',1215386814,'Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a\n switch, and specify the following:\n\n a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.\n No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.\n\n b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,\n exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other\n values are possible for instances of that switch.\n\n c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.\n That officer\'s report includes the value of each instance of\n that switch whose value is not its default value.\n\n At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one\n possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a\n switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.\n If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a\n possible value, it comes to have its default value.\n\n \"To flip an instance of a switch\" is to make it come to have a\n given value. \"To become X\" (where X is a possible value of\n exactly one of the subject\'s switches) is to flip that switch to\n X.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(472107,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2150,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1215386814,'Rule 2150/3 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(472108,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2166,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Assets','Assets',1215386814,'Rule 2166/5 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely\n because its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 1914.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(472109,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2181,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1215386814,'Rule 2181/3 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor. If any such assets exist,\n then the Accountor\'s report includes a list of their backing\n documents; otherwise, the Accountor has no report.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose\n backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(472110,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1728,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1215386814,'Rule 1728/19 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n A player CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action)\n if and only if the Rules explicitly authorize the player to\n perform the action by one of the following methods:\n\n - Without N Objections, where N is a nonnegative integer;\n - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or\n - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum of 1.0.\n\n The phrase \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\"; the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\"; the phrase \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with\n \"With 1.0 Agoran Consent\".\n\n A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the\n initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so,\n unambiguously describing both the action and the method,\n including the required value for N. A player (the performer)\n CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent\n action by announcement, if and only if all of the following are\n true:\n\n (a) the time elapsed since the announcement of intent is no more\n than fourteen days, and (if the action is to be performed\n Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four\n days;\n\n (b) either the performer was the initiator, or the action\n depends on support and the performer has supported the\n action and the rule allowing the action to be performed\n dependently does not explicitly prohibit supporters from\n performing it, or the initiator was authorized to perform\n the action by virtue of holding a rules-defined position and\n the performer is the holder of that position when e attempts\n to perform the action; and\n\n (c) At the time the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with\n the announced intent, as described elsewhere.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008'),(472111,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2124,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1215386814,'Rule 2124/7 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a\n dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players\n to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008'),(472112,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1769,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Holidays','Holidays',1215386814,'Rule 1769/7 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the\n time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event,\n and\n\n a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at\n which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose\n of determining the time of the future event.\n\n b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the\n future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require events to be\n performed before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(472113,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1750,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',1215386814,'Rule 1750/1 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February\n is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the\n ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(472114,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1006,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008','Offices','Offices',1215386814,'Rule 1006/25 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an\n elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL\n make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is\n waived if another player so makes a nomination.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008'),(472115,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2154,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1215386814,'Rule 2154/11 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved.\n A player who has not refused eir nomination is a consenting\n candidate.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if\n there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em\n in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more\n consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran\n decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known\n as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no nomination\n period began for that office during that quarter, then the IADoP\n SHALL make at least one nomination for the office during the\n following quarter. These requirements are waived if another\n player so makes a nomination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008'),(472116,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2138,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1215386814,'Rule 2138/4 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(472117,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2143,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1215386814,'Rule 2143/2 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,\n and the publication of all such information is part of that\n office\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each month. If any information is defined\n by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then\n the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such\n information, and the publication of all such information is\n part of that office\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(472118,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1551,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification','Ratification',1215386814,'Rule 1551/12 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n Ratifying a public document is secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(472119,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2202,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',1215386814,'Rule 2202/0 (Power=3)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(472120,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2201,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Self-Ratification','Self-Ratification',1215386814,'Rule 2201/0 (Power=3)\nSelf-Ratification\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(472121,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2160,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1215386814,'Rule 2160/3 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(472122,'rcs','00000001.00000800',693,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 693/9 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(472123,'rcs','00000001.00000800',107,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 107/9 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(472124,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2137,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','The Assessor','The Assessor',1215386814,'Rule 2137/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report EVLOD (rule 2156)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(472125,'rcs','00000001.00000800',683,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more\nvotes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the\nmaking of a false statement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(472126,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2127,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1215386814,'Rule 2127/2 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own\n opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008'),(472127,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2168,'Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007','Extending the voting period','Extending the voting period',1215386814,'Rule 2168/0 (Power=1)\nExtending the voting period\n\n Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and\n the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting\n period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided\n this has not already happened for the decision in question.\n\n Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision\n SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who\n have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007'),(472128,'rcs','00000001.00000800',208,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1215386814,'Rule 208/7 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(472129,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2196,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 2196/1 (Power=3)\nStandard Classes of Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or\n democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater\n than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision\n with an adoption index is ordinary by default.\n\n If an Agoran decision has an adoption index, then the following\n are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its adoption index.\n b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n\n For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available\n options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(472130,'rcs','00000001.00000800',955,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 955/13 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting\n index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(472131,'rcs','00000001.00000800',879,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Quorum','Quorum',1215386814,'Rule 879/27 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(472132,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2034,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1215386814,'Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any\n existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is\n wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the\n validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be\n validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be\n changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This\n does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.\n\n A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(472133,'rcs','00000001.00000800',106,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1215386814,'Rule 106/12 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(472134,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2153,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Interest Index','Interest Index',1215386814,'Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)\nInterest Index\n\n The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 0 to 3. It\n CAN be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or\n otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be\n proportional to its complexity.\n\n \"Disinterested\" is a synonym for \"interest index 0\". A proposal\n SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited\n to correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(472135,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1607,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1215386814,'Rule 1607/18 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution\n of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the\n beginning of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(472136,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1450,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1215386814,'Rule 1450/8 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(472137,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1698,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Agora Is a Nomic','Agora Is a Nomic',1215386814,'Rule 1698/1 (Power=3)\nAgora Is a Nomic\n\n In the interest of safeguarding Agora\'s nomic-ness, if a change\n to the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make\n arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a\n four-week period by any combinations of actions by players, then\n that change is canceled and does not occur, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997\nRetitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(472138,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1950,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Voting on Democratic Decisions','Voting on Democratic Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 1950/20 (Power=3)\nVoting on Democratic Decisions\n\n The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities\n that were active first-class players at the start of its voting\n period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic\n decision is one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(472139,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2156,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 2156/6 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting\n limit on ordinary decisions (BVLOD). The BVLOD of a first-class\n player is four, the BVLOD of a province is four, and the BVLOD\n of any other player is zero. BVLOD cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. Changes to VVLOD\n are secured\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir effective\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir EVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. At the end of\n each week, each player\'s EVLOD is set to eir VVLOD, rounded to\n an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOD is\n set to the same rounded value. EVLOD cannot be modified by any\n other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s\n EVLOD.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n EVLOD at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008'),(472140,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2134,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1215386814,'Rule 2134/4 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD, and\n no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder\n of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that\n each player\'s EVLOD is set based on eir VVLOD.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(472141,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2126,'Amended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008','Notes','Notes',1215386814,'Rule 2126/55 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008'),(472142,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2142,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1215386814,'Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be\n democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(472143,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2019,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1215386814,'Rule 2019/15 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent\n title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose which\n members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008'),(472144,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2188,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Proposal','Win by Proposal',1215386814,'Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Proposal\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(472145,'rcs','00000001.00000800',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1215386814,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)\n * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(472146,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2175,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1215386814,'Rule 2175/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(472147,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1868,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1215386814,'Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(472148,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1871,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1215386814,'Rule 1871/24 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e SHALL\n flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely\n fashion.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008'),(472149,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2204,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Linked Assignments','Linked Assignments',1215386814,'Rule 2204/0 (Power=1.5)\nLinked Assignments\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts assigns a player as judge of two or\n more judicial cases consecutively in the same announcement, that\n player only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules\n to the contrary notwithstanding. The CotC SHOULD NOT do this\n unless those cases are closely related in their subject matter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(472150,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2203,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Hawkishness','Hawkishness',1215386814,'Rule 2203/0 (Power=1.5)\nHawkishness\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts, with the following values:\n\n * Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any inquiry case.\n\n * Hugging. Hugging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be\n assigned as judge of any equity case.\n\n * Hemming-and-Hawing (default).\n\n Changes to hawkishness are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(472151,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2157,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1215386814,'Rule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members, or\n (unless the CotC is a member of the panel, the prior judge, or\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the\n Support of at least half the other members and the Support of\n the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support a majority action if the\n panel has made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By\n this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008'),(472152,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2158,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1215386814,'Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008'),(472153,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2164,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1215386814,'Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(472154,'rcs','00000001.00000800',591,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1215386814,'Rule 591/26 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(472155,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1504,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1215386814,'Rule 1504/23 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.\n When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of\n eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(472156,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2190,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Crime Doesn\'t Pay','Crime Doesn\'t Pay',1215386814,'Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(472157,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1215386814,'Rule 2169/5 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the\n contract in question by announcement.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(472158,'rcs','00000001.00000800',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1215386814,'Rule 911/20 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered\n open again\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior\n case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered\n open again\n\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(472159,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2205,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','Judicial Arguments and Evidence','Judicial Arguments and Evidence',1215386814,'Rule 2205/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Arguments and Evidence\n\n Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD\n present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)\n relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:\n\n 1) The initiator, when initiating the case.\n\n 2) For a criminal case, the defendant, during the pre-trial\n phase.\n\n 3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question,\n during the pre-trial phase.\n\n 4) The judge, when delivering judgement.\n\n Matters of legal interpretation SHOULD be classified as\n arguments; matters of fact SHOULD be classified as evidence.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(472160,'rcs','00000001.00000800',649,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1215386814,'Rule 649/27 (Power=1.5)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\n 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(472161,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1922,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)',1215386814,'Rule 1922/24 (Power=1)\nRule 1922/27 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or\n the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to\n any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.\n in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(472162,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1367,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Degrees','Degrees',1215386814,'Rule 1367/11 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\n 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(472163,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 1742/14 (Power=1.5)\nRule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules. Any\n agreement made by one or more persons with the intention that it\n be binding on them and governed by the rules is a contract\n (unless it would automatically terminate as a contract).\n\n A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to\n it falls below the number of parties the rules require for the\n contract. If other rules do not specify such a number for a\n contract, then a contract requires at least two parties.\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(472164,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2197,'Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008','Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)','Rule 2197/1 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2197/1 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2197/1 (Power=2)\nDefining Contract Changes\n\n A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following:\n\n (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a\n party to the contract;\n\n (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract;\n\n (c) amending a contract; and\n\n (d) terminating a contract\n\n If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot\n be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then\n that change has no effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\n 2008'),(472165,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2198,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2198/1 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nMaking Contract Changes\n If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to\n it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using\n that mechanism.\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n Objection if, before the dependent action is resolved, no party\n blocks the change by announcement.\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008'),(472166,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2178,'Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),','Rule 2178/2 (Power=2)','Rule 2178/2 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2178/2 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2178/2 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. Any other contract is private.\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership, provided that at least one\n of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of members, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its members, that the contract be\n public.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and membership.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or membership of a public contract do not\n become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\n 29 October 2008'),(472167,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2173,'Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2173/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2173/1 (Power=1)\nRule 2173/3 (Power=2)\nThe Notary\n The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible\n for keeping track of contracts.\n track of contracts.\n\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s report includes\n this information for each public contract.\n report includes each public contract\'s text and set of parties.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\n 2008'),(472168,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2191,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2191/4 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2191/2 (Power=1.5)\nRule 2191/4 (Power=2)\nPledges\n A pledge is a contract identifying itself as such. A pledge\n requires at least one party.\n pledge requires at least one party.\n\n An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a\n non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating\n an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is\n considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(472169,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2145,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2145/4 (Power=2)\nRule 2145/5 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(472170,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2209,'Created by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,','Agoran Welcoming Committee','Agoran Welcoming Committee',1215386814,'Rule 2209/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Welcoming Committee\n\n The Greeter is an imposed office.\n\n While a partnership named \"Welcoming Committee\" exists, and its\n obligations include all of the following:\n\n a) Greet all new players.\n\n b) Engage in contact with new players to assist them.\n\n c) Engage in contact with new players to ensure a positive\n experience.\n\n then this office is imposed upon that partnership. Otherwise,\n this office is vacant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5565 (cdm014, Zefram, avpx, Ivan Hope, root,\n Murphy), 29 June 2008'),(472171,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2174,'Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Aliens','Aliens',1215386814,'Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)\nAliens\n\n An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or\n more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an\n alien with one or more registered visas.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(472172,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2136,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)','Rule 2136/21 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2136/20 (Power=1)\nRule 2136/21 (Power=2)\nContests\n\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n contains the contestmaster of each contest.\n Any player CAN flip the contestmaster of a public contract\n without 3 objections, except if doing so would cause a player to\n be contestmaster of more than one contest, or it would flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly\n consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player\n intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this\n is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that\n contract.)\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY revoke in a given week\n is equal to 2 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be revoked by the\n contestmaster from other members by public announcement, and\n MUST be revoked as explicitly described in the contract.\n\n For each contest, ASAP after the beginning of each month, the\n Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award a number of\n points, equal to the number of Players who were Contestants in\n that Contest at any time during the previous month, to the\n Player (if any) who was its Contestmaster for 16 or more days\n during the previous month, provided that the Contestmaster\n performed Contest-related duties in a timely manner during that\n time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008'),(472173,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2179,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2179/1 (Power=1)\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\nPoints\n\n restricted to players.\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008'),(472174,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2187,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008','Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2187/2 (Power=2)\nRule 2187/3 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008'),(472175,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2193,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1215386814,'Rule 2193/9 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008'),(472176,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2192,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1215386814,'Rule 2192/3 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of\n the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and\n SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster\n fulfills all of its duties.\n\n The Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one). This proposal counts as the Mad\n Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.\n\n[Cross-references (23 April 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * act on behalf of the monster to fulfill its duties (rule 2192)\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008'),(472177,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2200,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 2200/1 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\n\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name\n of \"Agora\" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any\n nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.\n\n A province is a protectorate that is a player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008'),(472178,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2135,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Advertising','Advertising',1215386814,'Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(472179,'rcs','00000001.00000800',402,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 402/24 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008'),(472180,'rcs','00000001.00000800',103,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 103/4 (Power=3)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(472181,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2184,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign communications','Foreign communications',1215386814,'Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(472182,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2148,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1215386814,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(472183,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not\nhave significance under the rules of Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[CFJ 1821 (called 4 December 2007): A nonsensical word does not\nconstitute a description of an action that could hypothetically be\nperformed on behalf of Agora.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(472184,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2189,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Extortion','Win by Extortion',1215386814,'Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Extortion\n\n Upon a player acting on behalf of Agora to award a win to one or\n more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Extortion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(472185,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1215386814,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(472186,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2147,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1215386814,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(472187,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2159,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1215386814,'Rule 2159/2 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(472188,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2206,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Foreign Trade','Foreign Trade',1215386814,'Rule 2206/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Trade\n\n A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a\n foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon\n as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the\n announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.\n\n The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt\n legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable\n foreign assets.\n\n Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign\n exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(472189,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2207,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Trade Embargo','Trade Embargo',1215386814,'Rule 2207/0 (Power=1)\nTrade Embargo\n\n A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its\n Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(472190,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 2105/3 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(472191,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1727,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1215386814,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known\n unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,\n until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\n BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Unbirthday is defined to\n be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,\n since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire\n days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(472192,'rcs','00000001.00000800',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael\nNorrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present\ntime.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(472193,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1215386814,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(472194,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1215386814,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\n[CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an\nobilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because \"Marvy\" is\ncurrently undefined.]\n\n[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not\nnecessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(497311,'rcs','00000001.00000918',2124,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1228689591,'Rule 2124/9 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is\n equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of\n a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of\n players to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then\n it has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N supporters, then it\n has N or more supporters; and\n\n (3) if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then\n the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or\n the action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21\n February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008'),(497312,'rcs','00000001.00000919',2154,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5998 (Sgeo), 7 December 2008','Election Procedure','Election Procedure',1228689883,'Rule 2154/20 (Power=2)\nElection Procedure\n\n Any player CAN by announcement initiate an election for an\n elected office for which no election is already in progress,\n nominating at least one active player.\n\n During the first four days of the election (the nomination\n period), any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more\n active players.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, the IADoP\n SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new\n officeholder. For this decision:\n\n 1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active\n players who, during the election,\n\n a) received and accepted a nomination for the office\n before the decision was initiated (self-nomination\n constitutes acceptance), and\n\n b) did not decline a nomination for the office, and\n\n c) are Senators if there is currently an Emergency\n Session.\n\n The set of candidates can change after the decision is\n initiated.\n\n 2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is\n initiated, the eligible voters are the active players.\n Otherwise, the eligible voters are the active Senators.\n\n 3) Each eligible voter\'s voting limit is one. An ordered list\n of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for the\n first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the\n second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth.\n\n Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a\n candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5998 (Sgeo), 7 December 2008'),(497294,'rcs','00000001.00000910',2153,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Interest Index','Interest Index',1228363900,'Rule 2153/2 (Power=1)\nInterest Index\n\n An entity\'s interest index is an integer from 0 to 3, default\n value 1. An entity\'s interest index SHOULD be proportional to\n its complexity.\n\n \"Disinterested\" is a synonym for \"interest index 0\".\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497295,'rcs','00000001.00000910',2227,'Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Interest Index of Offices','Interest Index of Offices',1228363900,'Rule 2227/0 (Power=1)\nInterest Index of Offices\n\n Each office has an interest index.\n\n A player CAN flip an office\'s interest index to any value\n without objection, or without 2 objections if e holds the\n office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497296,'rcs','00000001.00000910',2224,'Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Interest Index of Proposals','Interest Index of Proposals',1228363900,'Rule 2224/0 (Power=1)\nInterest Index of Proposals\n\n Each proposal has an interest index, which CAN be set by its\n author at the time of submission. A proposal SHOULD be\n disinterested if and only if its effects are limited to\n correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497297,'rcs','00000001.00000910',2126,'Amended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','Notes','Notes',1228363900,'Rule 2126/58 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the\n highest interest index among all such offices.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to\n the highest interest index among all such offices.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a\n number of D Notes equal to the highest interest index\n among all such cases.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497205,'rcs','00000001.00000900',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1227766571,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * announce whether a Notice of Violation is valid (rule 2230)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)\n * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(497203,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2188,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)','Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)',1227766571,'Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)\nRule 2142/4 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be\n democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(497204,'rcs','00000001.00000900',2019,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1227766571,'Rule 2019/20 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title\n Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the\n larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes\n to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either\n hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done\n so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to\n that case during this period, unless either no panels\n eligible to be so assigned include the Justiciar, or all of\n them do. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the\n Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or\n excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the\n start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting\n limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be\n otherwise (rounded to the nearest integer, breaking ties\n toward odd integers), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5606 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5693 (Goethe), 20 September 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5781 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496861,'rcs','00000001.00000826',2212,'Created by Proposal 5715 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Judicial Declarations','Judicial Declarations',1223498618,'Rule 2212/0 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Declarations\n\n A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by the\n rules in conjunction with a judgement is self-ratifying,\n provided that that judgement remains in effect. Such a\n judgement may be inappropriate due to the content of this\n declaration, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5715 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496862,'rcs','00000001.00000827',2170,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5716 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1223509683,'Rule 2170/3 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not\n to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those\n persons within Agora.\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead\n others as to the identity of its publisher.\n\n A public message\'s (possibly implicit) claim as to the identity\n of its publisher is self-ratifying, provided that the claim is\n neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, and no challenge of\n identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued\n within one month before its publication. Upon a judicial\n finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages\n (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those\n claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon\n as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet\n was a person during one or more time periods, which SHOULD\n correspond to general belief prior to that finding.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is\n the executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5671 (Murphy, Pavrita), 12 August 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5716 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496863,'rcs','00000001.00000828',2170,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5717 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1223510905,'Rule 2170/4 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not\n to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those\n persons within Agora.\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead\n others as to the identity of its publisher.\n\n A public message\'s (possibly implicit) claim as to the identity\n of its publisher is self-ratifying, provided that the claim is\n neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, and no challenge of\n identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued\n within one month before its publication. Upon a judicial\n finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages\n (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those\n claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon\n as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet\n was a person during one or more time periods, which SHOULD\n correspond to general belief prior to that finding.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. (Upon a judicial finding that the Executor of a public\n message cannot otherwise be determined within reasonable effort,\n the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial\n declaration specifying the identity of that message\'s Executor.)\n The executor of an action performed by announcement is the\n executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5671 (Murphy, Pavrita), 12 August 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5716 (Murphy), 7 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5717 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496864,'rcs','00000001.00000829',2138,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1223510989,'Rule 2138/5 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP\'s\n report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008'),(496865,'rcs','00000001.00000830',2193,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5719 (comex), 7 October 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1223511173,'Rule 2193/18 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5719 (comex), 7 October 2008'),(496866,'rcs','00000001.00000831',1586,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1223511335,'Rule 1586/4 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same\n name, then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined\n entity\'s name CANNOT be changed to be the same as another\n rule-defined entity.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still\n define that entity but with different properties, then that\n entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent\n is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496867,'rcs','00000001.00000831',2161,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1223511335,'Rule 2161/3 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\n (f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name\n is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it\n has no name.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(496868,'rcs','00000001.00000832',1504,'Amended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1223511460,'Rule 1504/29 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the\n prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform,\n appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the\n severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the\n consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any\n other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or\n insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive\n service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence\n of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the\n prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time\n limit is specified).\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008'),(496869,'rcs','00000001.00000832',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1223511460,'Rule 911/21 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered\n open again\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge\n exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific\n and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not\n arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly\n incidental material benefit common among many players); the\n question is rendered open again\n opportunity\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(460469,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2179,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2179/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2179/1 (Power=1)\nRule 2179/3 (Power=2)\nPoints\n\n restricted to players.\n point holdings are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008'),(460470,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2187,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008','Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2187/3 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 2187/2 (Power=2)\nRule 2187/3 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score of\n at least 100 (specifying all such players), all those players\n satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have eir scores set to floor(N*S/10), where N\n is eir previous score and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008'),(460471,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2193,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1215386814,'Rule 2193/9 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008'),(460472,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2192,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008','The Mad Scientist','The Mad Scientist',1215386814,'Rule 2192/3 (Power=1)\nThe Mad Scientist\n\n The Mad Scientist is an office; its holder is responsible for\n building the Monster. The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of\n the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and\n SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster\n fulfills all of its duties.\n\n The Mad Scientist\'s weekly duties include the performance of the\n following tasks, in order:\n\n a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is\n either this rule or the rule \"The Monster\", then the\n villagers have shown up with torches and pitchforks; skip\n directly to proposal submission.\n\n b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected\n rule.\n\n c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace\n each instance of that noun with \"Monster\" (including\n grammatical variations, e.g. replacing \"\'s\" with\n \"Monster\'s\").\n\n d) Submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of\n the selected rule, and interest index 0, to append the\n modified text to the rule \"The Monster\" (or, if the villagers\n have shown up with torches and pitchforks, to repeal both\n that rule and this one). This proposal counts as the Mad\n Scientist\'s weekly report if/when it is adopted.\n\n[Cross-references (23 April 2008): the Mad Scientist\'s duties are:\n * act on behalf of the monster to fulfill its duties (rule 2192)\n * propose mutation of the monster (rule 2192)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5483 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5494 (OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 23 April 2008'),(460473,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2200,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008','Nomic Definitions','Nomic Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 2200/1 (Power=1)\nNomic Definitions\n\n A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means\n for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those\n rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be\n possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of\n actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be\n required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable\n in finite time.\n\n A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a\n whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each\n nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset.\n\n A foreign nomic is a nomic that is not Agora. Adopting the name\n of \"Agora\" does not disqualify a nomic from being foreign; any\n nomic that is not the One True Agora is a foreign nomic.\n\n A province is a protectorate that is a player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008'),(460474,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2135,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Advertising','Advertising',1215386814,'Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(460475,'rcs','00000001.00000800',402,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 402/24 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008'),(460476,'rcs','00000001.00000800',103,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 103/4 (Power=3)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is an imposed office.\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008'),(460477,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2184,'Created by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign communications','Foreign communications',1215386814,'Rule 2184/0 (Power=1)\nForeign communications\n\n When the Ambassador informs a foreign nomic of an event, e SHALL\n use the forum (if any) specified by that nomic for announcing\n that type of event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5390 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(460478,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2148,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1215386814,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * use appropriate forum when notifying foreign nomic (rule 2184)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * track recognition (rule 2185)\n * flip recognition (rule 2185)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(460479,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not\nhave significance under the rules of Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[CFJ 1821 (called 4 December 2007): A nonsensical word does not\nconstitute a description of an action that could hypothetically be\nperformed on behalf of Agora.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(460480,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2189,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Extortion','Win by Extortion',1215386814,'Rule 2189/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Extortion\n\n Upon a player acting on behalf of Agora to award a win to one or\n more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Extortion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(460481,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2185,'Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008','Foreign Relations','Foreign Relations',1215386814,'Rule 2185/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Relations\n\n Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the\n Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly,\n Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned.\n\n When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition\n becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a\n Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign\n nomic\'s Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any\n other way.\n\n The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic\'s\n Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E\n SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008'),(460482,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2147,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protectorates','Protectorates',1215386814,'Rule 2147/5 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on\n the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from\n being a protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(460483,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2159,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1215386814,'Rule 2159/2 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic.\n The decree takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\n[CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that\nis neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document\nis a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(460484,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2206,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Foreign Trade','Foreign Trade',1215386814,'Rule 2206/0 (Power=1)\nForeign Trade\n\n A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a\n foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon\n as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the\n announcement to an appropriate foreign forum.\n\n The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt\n legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable\n foreign assets.\n\n Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign\n exports by creating comparable Agoran assets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(460485,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2207,'Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Trade Embargo','Trade Embargo',1215386814,'Rule 2207/0 (Power=1)\nTrade Embargo\n\n A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its\n Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(460486,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 2105/3 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(460487,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1727,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1215386814,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known\n unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,\n until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\n BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Unbirthday is defined to\n be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,\n since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire\n days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(460488,'rcs','00000001.00000800',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',1215386814,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael\nNorrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present\ntime.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(460489,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1215386814,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(460490,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1215386814,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\n[CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an\nobilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because \"Marvy\" is\ncurrently undefined.]\n\n[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not\nnecessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(497242,'rcs','00000001.00000901',2126,'Amended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008','','',1227767517,'Rule 2126/57 (Power=2)\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then\n changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the\n during that week gains an E Note.\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another non-Alpha player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of\n a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another non-Savage player\'s caste by 1 level.\n\n (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start\n of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level.\n\n (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (6) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August\n 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November\n 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008\nAmended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008\nAmended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008'),(497241,'rcs','00000001.00000901',2126,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)','Rule 2134/5 (Power=2)',1227767517,'Rule 2126/58 (Power=2)\nRule 2134/5 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s caste is set to its default\n value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the\n remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July\n 2008'),(497192,'rcs','00000001.00000900',879,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Quorum','Quorum',1227766571,'Rule 879/27 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(497313,'rcs','00000001.00000920',2230,'Amended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,','Rule 1504/32 (Power=2)','Rule 1504/32 (Power=2)',1228690020,'Rule 2230/4 (Power=2)\nRule 1504/32 (Power=2)\n\n Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged\n a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement (other than ALREADY\n TRIED) has already been reached in another criminal case with\n the same defendant, the same rule, and substantially the same\n alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the\n prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform,\n appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the\n severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the\n consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any\n other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or\n insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive\n service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence\n of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the\n prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time\n limit is specified).\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register, rules to\n the contrary notwithstanding.\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008\nPower changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008\nAmended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,'),(496904,'rcs','00000001.00000852',2145,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008','Partnerships','Partnerships',1224271523,'Rule 2145/5 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings,\n e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the\n crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate\n sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the\n partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is\n not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or\n would not adequately apply responsibility.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008'),(496905,'rcs','00000001.00000853',2214,'Created by Proposal 5777 (ais523), 17 October 2008','Export Bootstrapping','Export Bootstrapping',1224271926,'Rule 2214/0 (Power=1)\nExport Bootstrapping\n\n If a B Nomic proposal whose title is \"Export\" has been adopted\n in B Nomic, any player CAN repeal this rule and rules 2192 and\n 2193 by announcement.\n\n If a B Nomic proposal whose title is \"Export\" has been rejected\n in B Nomic, any player CAN repeal this rule by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5777 (ais523), 17 October 2008'),(496906,'rcs','00000001.00000854',1789,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1224727042,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=2)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October\n 2008'),(496907,'rcs','00000001.00000855',2019,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5781 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1224727143,'Rule 2019/19 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title\n Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the\n larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes\n to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either\n hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done\n so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to\n that case during this period, unless either no panels\n eligible to be so assigned include the Justiciar, or all of\n them do. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the\n Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or\n excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the\n start of an ordinary proposal\'s voting period has a voting\n limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be\n otherwise (rounded using the same method as the weekly update\n of EVLOD), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5606 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5693 (Goethe), 20 September 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5781 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496908,'rcs','00000001.00000856',955,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1224727277,'Rule 955/14 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then the voting index\n is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008'),(496854,'rcs','00000001.00000821',402,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1223497142,'Rule 402/25 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the active player who has borne the Patent Title\n of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008'),(496855,'rcs','00000001.00000821',1727,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1223497142,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played\n on, until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of\n Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\n BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Unbirthday is defined to\n be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,\n since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire\n days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(496856,'rcs','00000001.00000822',2154,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1223497406,'Rule 2154/14 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is\n resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated\n during the first half of the nominating period and did not\n refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and\n accepted.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a)\n if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL\n install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two\n or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an\n Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process\n is known as an election; (c) if there are no consenting nominees\n and the office is vacant, the IADOP SHALL, as soon as possible,\n resolve the nomination as Failed by announcement and begin a new\n nomination period by nominating at least one player to hold the\n office.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n If at any time during an election there remains only one valid\n option, the election stops and the IADOP SHALL install the\n remaining candidate in the office by announcement.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start\n of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder. This\n requirement is waived if the office comes to have an\n active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008'),(496857,'rcs','00000001.00000823',2193,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1223497597,'Rule 2193/16 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled\n\n The eligible Monsters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its Monsterising\n period. The Monsterising limit of an eligible Monster on an\n ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its Monsterising\n period, or half that (rounded up) if the Monster was in the\n chokey at that time.\n\n Some types of Monster include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a Monster with a tariff is in effect, the Monster is active\n while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Monsters of the same type on the same question on\n Monsterisation have been active for a total duration less\n than the tariff. (That is, if an active Monster is suspended\n and later reinstated or superseded by a similar Monster, then\n the defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active Monsters.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008'),(496858,'rcs','00000001.00000824',2154,'Amended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1223497936,'Rule 2154/15 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is\n resolved. A consenting candidate is a player who was nominated\n during the first half of the nominating period and did not\n refuse, or who was nominated during the second half and\n accepted.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a)\n if there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL\n install em in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two\n or more consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an\n Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder; this process\n is known as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n The IADoP SHALL make at least one attempt to install a player\n into an office, and SHALL make the change if possible, under\n the following circumstances:\n\n a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start\n of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the\n previous quarter. This requirement is waived if another\n player makes such a change during the current quarter.\n\n b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority)\n after the office ceases to have an active holder. This\n requirement is waived if the office comes to have an\n active holder during that week (month).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008\nAmended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008'),(496859,'rcs','00000001.00000824',2193,'Amended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)','Rule 2193/22 (Power=1)',1223497936,'Rule 2193/17 (Power=1)\nRule 2193/22 (Power=1)\nThe Monster\n\n Raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!\n\n A public Monster purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\n There is a format of the Monsterset known as the Short Logical\n Monsterset (SLM). In this format, each Monster is assigned to a\n category, and the Monsters are grouped according to their\n category.\n\n Monsters are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Monsterkeepor sees fit.\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran Monster to be made, the\n Monster-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the Monster.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the Monster.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n Monsters, all those Monsters satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all Monster-related\n cases that either require a Monster or have at least one\n applicable Monster-related question that has no judgement.\n\n \"First-class Monster\" means a Monster of a biological nature.\n\n The Monster\'s adopted motto is \"Le monstre n\'est pas une\n fontaine.\"\n\n The initiation of a Monstrous decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target Monster and the\n changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the specification of\n a Monstrous decree causes it to be void and without effect.\n This is the only mechanism by which a Monstrous decree can be\n initiated.\n\n If an instance of a switch comes to have a Monster, it ceases to\n have any other Monster.\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n A player CAN perform an action on behalf of The Monster with\n Monstrous Consent.\n\n The holder of a Monster is a Monsterholdor, and may be referred\n to by the name of the Monster. A Monster is imposed if it is so\n described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n Whenever a Monsteredict of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case\n alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the Monster\n SHOULD assign an EXILE Monsteredict to the question on\n sentencing in that case.\n Any Monster (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5396 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5435 (avpx; disi.), 13 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5444 (avpx; disi.), 21 February 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5460 (avpx), 13 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5501 (avpx; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5514 (avpx; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5540 (ais523; disi.), 13 June 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5541 (ais523; disi.), 16 June 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5546 (ais523; disi.), 20 June 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5569 (ais523; disi.), 4 July 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5589 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5836 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5647 (ais523; disi.), 29 July 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5654 (ais523; disi.), 9 August 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5674 (ais523; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5682 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5685 (ais523; disi.), 8 September 2008\nAmended(17) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008'),(496860,'rcs','00000001.00000825',1504,'Amended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1223498171,'Rule 1504/29 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case. A\n criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN,\n with 2 Support, be initiated by any first-class person who is a\n member of the basis of any player, by announcement which clearly\n specifies all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) A specific action (which may be a failure to perform another\n action) by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n d) The messages (if any) in which the action occurred.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act would not have\n violated the specified rule\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n \n * FINE with an amount of one currency, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the\n currency\'s backing document binds the ninny or the ninny has\n this amount of the currency, and the backing document\n specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater\n than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72\n hours either destroy this amount of eir currency or transfer\n it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per question on\n sentencing, even if sentences of this type are assigned more\n than once or go into effect more than once.\n\n * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the\n prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform,\n appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the\n severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the\n consequences of performing the tasks, and especially if any\n other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or\n insufficient. The balance between compensatory and punitive\n service is left to the judge\'s discretion. While a sentence\n of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform the\n prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different time\n limit is specified).\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,\nBobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),\n 29 July 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008'),(460455,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2205,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','Judicial Arguments and Evidence','Judicial Arguments and Evidence',1215386814,'Rule 2205/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Arguments and Evidence\n\n Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD\n present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)\n relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:\n\n 1) The initiator, when initiating the case.\n\n 2) For a criminal case, the defendant, during the pre-trial\n phase.\n\n 3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question,\n during the pre-trial phase.\n\n 4) The judge, when delivering judgement.\n\n Matters of legal interpretation SHOULD be classified as\n arguments; matters of fact SHOULD be classified as evidence.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(460456,'rcs','00000001.00000800',649,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1215386814,'Rule 649/27 (Power=1.5)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a\n person\'s distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its\n holder is responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or\n revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a\n list of which entities Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the\n patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear\n that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a\nperson at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a\npatent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008\n 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(460457,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1922,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)','Rule 1922/27 (Power=1)',1215386814,'Rule 1922/24 (Power=1)\nRule 1922/27 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to\n title. If the number of players bearing this title is\n title. If the number of persons bearing this title is\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Clerk of the Courts or\n the Registrar (whichever one gets around to it first) to\n any player who publishes a Cantus Cygneus.\n in a Writ of FAGE.\n\n (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends\n that were involved in Agora in its early days and now\n continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the\n lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to\n discussions.\n\n[CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion\nCANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has\nnot won the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008'),(460458,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1367,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008','Degrees','Degrees',1215386814,'Rule 1367/11 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\n 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008'),(460459,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1742,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)','Rule 1742/17 (Power=2)',1215386814,'Rule 1742/14 (Power=1.5)\nRule 1742/17 (Power=2)\nContracts\n Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules. Any\n agreement made by one or more persons with the intention that it\n be binding on them and governed by the rules is a contract\n (unless it would automatically terminate as a contract).\n\n A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to\n it falls below the number of parties the rules require for the\n contract. If other rules do not specify such a number for a\n contract, then a contract requires at least two parties.\n comes to have less than the required number of parties.\n\n Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that\n contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction\n between the contract and any other contract, or between the\n contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding\nis thereby not a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is\nthereby a contract, even if it doesn\'t impose any obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement\'s text can disclaim\ncontract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly\ndescribing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]\n\n[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a\nprerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if\nthe courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person\'s\ncontract-related rights (in rule 101) are not being infringed. This\nincludes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the\nrules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008'),(460384,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1215386814,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.]\n\n[CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time\nof Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule\nof higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English\nmeaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does\nmust be decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(460385,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1030,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1215386814,'Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(460386,'rcs','00000001.00000800',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1215386814,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(460387,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1215386814,'Rule 1681/12 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(460388,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1051,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1215386814,'Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(460389,'rcs','00000001.00000800',869,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1215386814,'Rule 869/25 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(460390,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2144,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1215386814,'Rule 2144/8 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008'),(460391,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1215386814,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(460392,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1215386814,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(460393,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2130,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Activity','Activity',1215386814,'Rule 2130/9 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(460394,'rcs','00000001.00000800',478,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Fora','Fora',1215386814,'Rule 478/23 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A person \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(460395,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2208,'Created by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008','Clarity of Announcements','Clarity of Announcements',1215386814,'Rule 2208/0 (Power=3)\nClarity of Announcements\n\n All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if the\n action is not unambiguously specified. This rule takes\n precedence over all rules that allow performance of an action by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5555 (ais523), 21 June 2008'),(460396,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2170,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1215386814,'Rule 2170/1 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n A public message\'s claim as to who published it is\n self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a\n challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has\n been issued within one month before its publication.\n\n The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who\n sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be\n sent. The executor of an action performed by announcement is\n the executor of the announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(460397,'rcs','00000001.00000800',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without\nsurrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate\nanything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the\nURI.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI\nby default have no significance other than their functional role as\npart of the URI.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(460398,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2152,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1215386814,'Rule 2152/4 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n persons in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified person(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the\n rule in question.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(460399,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1023,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1215386814,'Rule 1023/23 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrases \"in a timely fashion\" and \"as soon as possible\"\n mean \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008'),(460400,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2161,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1215386814,'Rule 2161/2 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(460401,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2146,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Indices','Indices',1215386814,'Rule 2146/1 (Power=2)\nIndices\n\n Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a\n total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum\n element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called\n positive infinity or unanimity.\n\n The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The\n ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The\n ratio of zero to any index is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(460402,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2162,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Switches','Switches',1215386814,'Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a\n switch, and specify the following:\n\n a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.\n No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.\n\n b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,\n exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other\n values are possible for instances of that switch.\n\n c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.\n That officer\'s report includes the value of each instance of\n that switch whose value is not its default value.\n\n At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one\n possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a\n switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.\n If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a\n possible value, it comes to have its default value.\n\n \"To flip an instance of a switch\" is to make it come to have a\n given value. \"To become X\" (where X is a possible value of\n exactly one of the subject\'s switches) is to flip that switch to\n X.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(460403,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2150,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1215386814,'Rule 2150/3 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(460404,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2166,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Assets','Assets',1215386814,'Rule 2166/5 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely\n because its backing document defines its existence.\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If\n an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a class\n of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred\n to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned\n by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found\n Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it\n without objection).\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be\n created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"gain\" an asset is to\n have it created in one\'s possession; to \"award\" an asset to an\n entity is to create it in that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found\n Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"lose\" an asset is to have it destroyed from one\'s\n possession; to \"revoke\" an asset from an entity is to destroy it\n from that entity\'s possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\n[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the\nrecordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine\nwho possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the\nLost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon\ncreation.]\n\n[Note (11 March 2008): The existence of this rule is in question due\nto a scam. See CFJ 1914.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(460405,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2181,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008','The Accountor','The Accountor',1215386814,'Rule 2181/3 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for keeping track of miscellaneous assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor. If any such assets exist,\n then the Accountor\'s report includes a list of their backing\n documents; otherwise, the Accountor has no report.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets whose\n backing document does not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * report classes of assets (rule 2181)\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008'),(460406,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1728,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1215386814,'Rule 1728/19 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n A player CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action)\n if and only if the Rules explicitly authorize the player to\n perform the action by one of the following methods:\n\n - Without N Objections, where N is a nonnegative integer;\n - With N Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer; or\n - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum of 1.0.\n\n The phrase \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\"; the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\"; the phrase \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with\n \"With 1.0 Agoran Consent\".\n\n A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the\n initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so,\n unambiguously describing both the action and the method,\n including the required value for N. A player (the performer)\n CAN perform a previously unambiguously described dependent\n action by announcement, if and only if all of the following are\n true:\n\n (a) the time elapsed since the announcement of intent is no more\n than fourteen days, and (if the action is to be performed\n Without N Objections or With N Agoran Consent) at least four\n days;\n\n (b) either the performer was the initiator, or the action\n depends on support and the performer has supported the\n action and the rule allowing the action to be performed\n dependently does not explicitly prohibit supporters from\n performing it, or the initiator was authorized to perform\n the action by virtue of holding a rules-defined position and\n the performer is the holder of that position when e attempts\n to perform the action; and\n\n (c) At the time the action is attempted, Agora is Satisfied with\n the announced intent, as described elsewhere.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008'),(460407,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2124,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008','Agoran Satisfaction','Agoran Satisfaction',1215386814,'Rule 2124/7 (Power=2)\nAgoran Satisfaction\n\n A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who\n has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an\n announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a\n dependent action is a first-class player (or other person\n explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing\n that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted\n (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent\n to perform the action.\n\n The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support\n nor object to it. A rule authorizing the performance of a\n dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players\n to support or object to that specific action.\n\n Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action\n if and only if:\n\n (1) the action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it\n has fewer than N objectors;\n\n (2) the action is to be performed With N supporters, and it has\n N or more supporters; or\n\n (3) the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the\n ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the\n action has at least one supporter and no objectors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008'),(460408,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1769,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Holidays','Holidays',1215386814,'Rule 1769/7 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the\n time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event,\n and\n\n a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at\n which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose\n of determining the time of the future event.\n\n b) the future event would occur during a Holiday, then the\n future event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday\n instead.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require events to be\n performed before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(460409,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1750,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',1215386814,'Rule 1750/1 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February\n is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the\n ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(460410,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1006,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008','Offices','Offices',1215386814,'Rule 1006/25 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining\n it; otherwise, it is elected.\n\n The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,\n causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an\n elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL\n make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is\n waived if another player so makes a nomination.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008'),(460411,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2154,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1215386814,'Rule 2154/11 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more active\n players to be candidate(s) for an elected Office. This begins a\n nomination period for that office, during which other candidates\n may be so nominated. The nomination period lasts for four days.\n Once a nomination period begins, a new one CANNOT begin for the\n same office until the nomination or resulting election is resolved.\n A player who has not refused eir nomination is a consenting\n candidate.\n\n As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, then: (a) if\n there is only one consenting candidate, the IADoP SHALL install em\n in the Office by announcement; (b) if there are two or more\n consenting candidates, then the IADoP SHALL initiate an Agoran\n decision to determine the new officeholder; this process is known\n as an election.\n\n In an election, the valid options are the consenting nominees\n (hereafter the candidates), quorum is the lesser of three and\n the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players.\n If a player refuses eir nomination during the election, e\n ceases to be a valid option.\n\n In the notice resolving the decision, the IADoP will select a\n candidate that received at least as many votes as any other\n candidate (if any); this candidate thereby becomes the\n officeholder.\n\n Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP,\n with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN\n flip an office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual\n office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no nomination\n period began for that office during that quarter, then the IADoP\n SHALL make at least one nomination for the office during the\n following quarter. These requirements are waived if another\n player so makes a nomination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008'),(460412,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2138,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1215386814,'Rule 2138/4 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that\n office began.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * track stability of elected offices (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008'),(460413,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2143,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','Official Reports and Duties','Official Reports and Duties',1215386814,'Rule 2143/2 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports and Duties\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each week. If any information is defined by\n the rules as part of that office\'s weekly report, then the\n holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information,\n and the publication of all such information is part of that\n office\'s weekly duties.\n\n b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office\'s\n monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform\n it at least once each month. If any information is defined\n by the rules as part of that office\'s monthly report, then\n the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such\n information, and the publication of all such information is\n part of that office\'s monthly duties.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(460414,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1551,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification','Ratification',1215386814,'Rule 1551/12 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n Ratifying a public document is secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(460415,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2202,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',1215386814,'Rule 2202/0 (Power=3)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(460416,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2201,'Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Self-Ratification','Self-Ratification',1215386814,'Rule 2201/0 (Power=3)\nSelf-Ratification\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(460417,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2160,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008','Deputisation','Deputisation',1215386814,'Rule 2160/3 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008'),(460418,'rcs','00000001.00000800',693,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 693/9 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(460419,'rcs','00000001.00000800',107,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 107/9 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential\n parameters.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the\n voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(460420,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2137,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','The Assessor','The Assessor',1215386814,'Rule 2137/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report EVLOD (rule 2156)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(460421,'rcs','00000001.00000800',683,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more\nvotes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the\nmaking of a false statement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(460422,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2127,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1215386814,'Rule 2127/2 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\n Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision.\n\n Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to\n conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most\n common value (if any) among that voter\'s valid votes on that\n decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; PRESENT is its own\n opposite.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008'),(460423,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2168,'Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007','Extending the voting period','Extending the voting period',1215386814,'Rule 2168/0 (Power=1)\nExtending the voting period\n\n Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and\n the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting\n period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided\n this has not already happened for the decision in question.\n\n Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision\n SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who\n have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007'),(460424,'rcs','00000001.00000800',208,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1215386814,'Rule 208/7 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If\n it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon\n as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid,\n this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting\n to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is\n defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if\n the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the\n current holder of that position.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(460425,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2196,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions','Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 2196/1 (Power=3)\nStandard Classes of Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or\n democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater\n than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision\n with an adoption index is ordinary by default.\n\n If an Agoran decision has an adoption index, then the following\n are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its adoption index.\n b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n\n For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available\n options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(460426,'rcs','00000001.00000800',955,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1215386814,'Rule 955/13 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting\n index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of\n AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater\n than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index, then the\n outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(460427,'rcs','00000001.00000800',879,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008','Quorum','Quorum',1215386814,'Rule 879/27 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008'),(460428,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2034,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1215386814,'Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any\n existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is\n wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the\n validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be\n validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be\n changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This\n does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.\n\n A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(460429,'rcs','00000001.00000800',106,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1215386814,'Rule 106/12 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008'),(460430,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2153,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Interest Index','Interest Index',1215386814,'Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)\nInterest Index\n\n The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 0 to 3. It\n CAN be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or\n otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be\n proportional to its complexity.\n\n \"Disinterested\" is a synonym for \"interest index 0\". A proposal\n SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited\n to correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(460431,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1607,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008','The Promotor','The Promotor',1215386814,'Rule 1607/18 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. The Promotor\'s weekly duties include the distribution\n of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the\n beginning of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the\n following are essential parameters:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its interest index.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008'),(460432,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1450,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1215386814,'Rule 1450/8 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(460433,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1698,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008','Agora Is a Nomic','Agora Is a Nomic',1215386814,'Rule 1698/1 (Power=3)\nAgora Is a Nomic\n\n In the interest of safeguarding Agora\'s nomic-ness, if a change\n to the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make\n arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a\n four-week period by any combinations of actions by players, then\n that change is canceled and does not occur, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997\nRetitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008'),(460434,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1950,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Voting on Democratic Decisions','Voting on Democratic Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 1950/20 (Power=3)\nVoting on Democratic Decisions\n\n The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities\n that were active first-class players at the start of its voting\n period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic\n decision is one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(460435,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2156,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008','Voting on Ordinary Decisions','Voting on Ordinary Decisions',1215386814,'Rule 2156/6 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Decisions\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting\n limit on ordinary decisions (BVLOD). The BVLOD of a first-class\n player is four, the BVLOD of a province is four, and the BVLOD\n of any other player is zero. BVLOD cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (VVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. Changes to VVLOD\n are secured\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir effective\n voting limit on ordinary decisions (EVLOD). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir EVLOD is set to eir BVLOD. At the end of\n each week, each player\'s EVLOD is set to eir VVLOD, rounded to\n an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOD is\n set to the same rounded value. EVLOD cannot be modified by any\n other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s\n EVLOD.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir\n EVLOD at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008'),(460436,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2134,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Win by Clout','Win by Clout',1215386814,'Rule 2134/4 (Power=2)\nWin by Clout\n\n Upon a win announcement that a specified player\'s voting limit\n on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the\n combined voting limits of all other players on that decision,\n the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout.\n\n Cleanup procedure: Each player\'s VVLOD is set to eir BVLOD, and\n no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder\n of this rule notwithstanding) until after the next time that\n each player\'s EVLOD is set based on eir VVLOD.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris,\n OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(460437,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2126,'Amended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008','Notes','Notes',1215386814,'Rule 2126/55 (Power=2)\nNotes\n\n Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is\n restricted to players. Changes to Note holdings are secured.\n\n Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale\n (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent).\n Each pitch of Note is a currency.\n\n The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes.\n\n Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values\n equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A\n player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e\n has already done so during the current month.\n\n Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually\n gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below\n as the player\'s Key is higher than C at the time of the gain:\n\n (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the\n number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during\n that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate\n proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >=\n AI/2:\n\n (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note.\n (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note.\n (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note.\n (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note.\n (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note.\n\n (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office\n during that week gains an E Note.\n\n (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the\n non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office\n during that month gains an Eb Note.\n\n (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at\n least one on-time judgement during that week gains a D\n Note.\n\n (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at\n least one Point during that week gains a C Note.\n\n (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded\n at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note.\n\n (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that\n passed during that week gains a B note.\n\n (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at\n least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that\n passed during that week gains a Bb note.\n\n Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows:\n\n (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to\n increase another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (2) A player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major\n scale to increase eir own VVLOD by 1.\n\n (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to\n decrease another player\'s VVLOD by 1.\n\n (4) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make\n another player gain one Note of that pitch.\n\n (5) During Agora\'s Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming\n the melody \"Happy Birthday\" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or\n a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Musicianship, unless another player has already done so\n during that Birthday.\n\n (6) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player\'s\n voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is\n in progress by 1.\n\n (7) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on\n an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by\n 1.\n\n (8) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is\n as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the\n distance between the other two Notes spent.\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP\nat the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.]\n\n[Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008\nAmended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008\nAmended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nRetitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008\nAmended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008\nAmended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008\nAmended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008\nAmended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008'),(460438,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2142,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1215386814,'Rule 2142/4 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be\n democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008'),(460439,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2019,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1215386814,'Rule 2019/15 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Player who bears the patent\n title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the\n upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in\n one set than the other, then e SHALL randomly choose which\n members of the larger set take part in the assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e\n is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a\nparticular month is lost at the end of that month.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008'),(460440,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2188,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Win by Proposal','Win by Proposal',1215386814,'Rule 2188/0 (Power=2)\nWin by Proposal\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more\n persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of\n Legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(460441,'rcs','00000001.00000800',991,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1215386814,'Rule 991/11 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of\n judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A\n judicial case\'s subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or\n otherwise defaults to inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * rotate the bench (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 2203)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)\n * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)\n * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(460442,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2175,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1215386814,'Rule 2175/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then it is an\n excess case, and the Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse it by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008'),(460443,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1868,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1215386814,'Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(460444,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1871,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1215386814,'Rule 1871/24 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,\n with the following values:\n\n * Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.\n\n * Sitting. Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the\n bench.\n\n * Leaning. Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but\n are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.\n\n * Supine (default). Supine players are unqualified to judge.\n\n Changes to posture are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes\n sitting.\n\n The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to\n standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e SHALL\n flip that player\'s posture to supine by announcement in a timely\n fashion.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008'),(460445,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2204,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Linked Assignments','Linked Assignments',1215386814,'Rule 2204/0 (Power=1.5)\nLinked Assignments\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts assigns a player as judge of two or\n more judicial cases consecutively in the same announcement, that\n player only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules\n to the contrary notwithstanding. The CotC SHOULD NOT do this\n unless those cases are closely related in their subject matter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(460446,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2203,'Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Hawkishness','Hawkishness',1215386814,'Rule 2203/0 (Power=1.5)\nHawkishness\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts, with the following values:\n\n * Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any inquiry case.\n\n * Hugging. Hugging players are unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be\n assigned as judge of any equity case.\n\n * Hemming-and-Hawing (default).\n\n Changes to hawkishness are secured.\n\n A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(460447,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2157,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1215386814,'Rule 2157/5 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous Support of the panel\'s other members, or\n (unless the CotC is a member of the panel, the prior judge, or\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case) with the\n Support of at least half the other members and the Support of\n the CotC. The CotC SHOULD so Support a majority action if the\n panel has made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By\n this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.\n\n A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008'),(460448,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2158,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1215386814,'Rule 2158/5 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold\n of 1.7.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as\n possible. A judge SHALL NOT assign an inappropriate judgement\n to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or\n appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things\n is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one\n judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them\n is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge\n has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk\n of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement\n as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the\n judge assigns a judgement to it first.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\n[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement\nis determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of\nthe reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008'),(460449,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2164,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1215386814,'Rule 2164/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008'),(460450,'rcs','00000001.00000800',591,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1215386814,'Rule 591/26 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent\n to including a statement that the answer to that question is\n yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008'),(460451,'rcs','00000001.00000800',1504,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1215386814,'Rule 1504/23 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n active while all of the following are true, inactive otherwise:\n\n 1) It is still in effect.\n\n 2) At least one week has elapsed since it first took effect.\n\n 3) Sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff.\n (That is, if an active sentence is suspended and later\n reinstated or superseded by a similar sentence, then the\n defendant gets credit for time served prior to the\n suspension.)\n\n The CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence.\n When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy one of\n eir Notes. The ninny is only obliged to perform one\n destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by the defendant by\n announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section\nlabelled \"arguments\" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal\ncase does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly\nbreached.]\n\n[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not\nappropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed\nwords, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008'),(460452,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2190,'Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),','Crime Doesn\'t Pay','Crime Doesn\'t Pay',1215386814,'Rule 2190/0 (Power=2)\nCrime Doesn\'t Pay\n\n Being in exile is a Losing Condition.\n\n Being in the chokey is a Losing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008'),(460453,'rcs','00000001.00000800',2169,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1215386814,'Rule 2169/5 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In\n the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform\n all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to\n submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation.\n The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week (or all parties to the contract have approved that\n judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement\n between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification\n or termination by the usual processes governing binding\n agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the\n contract in question by announcement.\n\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008'),(460454,'rcs','00000001.00000800',911,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)','Rule 911/22 (Power=1.7)',1215386814,'Rule 911/20 (Power=1.7)\nRule 911/22 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,\n an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by\n a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an\n appeal has already been initiated.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their\n effects, are as follows:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the\n prior question again\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered\n open again\n better judgement if given a new opportunity\n\n appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior\n case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered\n open again\n\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement\n is assigned to the prior question\n\n When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is\n suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in\n the appeal case is judged.\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008'),(497378,'rcs','00000001.00000949',1728,'Amended(23) by Proposal 6041 (Murphy, Warrigal), 13 January 2009','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1232361175,'Rule 1728/23 (Power=3)\nDependent Actions\n\n A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a\n dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the\n following are true:\n\n a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the\n action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N\n is 1 if not otherwise specified):\n\n 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.\n 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.\n 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple\n of 0.1 with a minimum of 1.\n\n b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the\n action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and\n method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at\n most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on\n objections) at least four days earlier.\n\n c) At least one of the following is true:\n\n 1) The performer is the initiator.\n\n 2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due\n to holding a rule-defined position now held by the\n performer.\n\n 3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the\n action depends on support, the performer has supported\n the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance\n does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing\n it.\n\n d) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by\n other rules.\n\n A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise\n permitted by the rules.\n\n A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract\n as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above\n requirements are otherwise met, and that the effects of that\n action are restricted to altering entities and/or attributes\n whose existence depends on that contract.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 6041 (Murphy, Warrigal), 13 January 2009'),(406492,'rcs','00000001.00000646',2144,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1199304399,'Rule 2144/6 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as\n that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned\n in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this\n rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question\n on sentencing in that case.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008'),(406493,'rcs','00000001.00000647',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1199304642,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * announce white VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406494,'rcs','00000001.00000647',2181,'Created by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007','The Accountor','The Accountor',1199304642,'Rule 2181/0 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(406495,'rcs','00000001.00000647',2138,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1199304642,'Rule 2138/3 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * announce green and cyan VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(406496,'rcs','00000001.00000647',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1199304642,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): if Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)\n * recordkeepor of VCs (rule 2126)\n * announce red and orange VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406497,'rcs','00000001.00000647',991,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1199304642,'Rule 991/10 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * announce blue and black VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406498,'rcs','00000001.00000647',649,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1199304642,'Rule 649/25 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * announce violet and indigo VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406499,'rcs','00000001.00000647',2179,'Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007','Points','Points',1199304642,'Rule 2179/0 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[Cross-references (1 January 2008): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * announce yellow VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007'),(406500,'rcs','00000001.00000648',2126,'Amended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1199304744,'Rule 2126/46 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another first-class player as eir mentor\n (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), e and\n that player each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum\n of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007\nAmended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008'),(406491,'rcs','00000001.00000645',1922,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1198388688,'Rule 1922/21 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded to any player who\n wins the game and does not already bear the title. If the\n number of players bearing this title is greater than the\n number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this\n title is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406507,'rcs','00000001.00000654',1504,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1199305466,'Rule 1504/20 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that\n the alleged act did not violate the specified rule\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably\n avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as\n that alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): A string of letters that has no\ndefined meaning in any extant language does not qualify as a word for\nthe purposes of constituting a set of prescribed words for an APOLOGY\nsentence.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008'),(497379,'rcs','00000001.00000950',591,'Amended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1232361238,'Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry\n case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular\n statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to\n including a statement that the answer to that question is yes,\n and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the\n judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are\n as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is\n not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical\n extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that\n don\'t actually exist\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator\n as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the\n ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.\n \"X and Y\", \"X or Y\") counts as a single statement\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take\nthe place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence\nestablished by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject\nof an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008\nAmended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008\nAmended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009'),(497342,'rcs','00000001.00000933',106,'Amended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1230022469,'Rule 106/15 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The author (syn.\n proposer) of a proposal is the player who submitted it. The\n author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by\n announcement.\n\n A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a\n Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere. Removing\n a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an\n Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.\n\n If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active\n player to distribute a Proposal, than any player may do so\n Without 3 Objections.\n\n A co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author)\n unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was\n submitted.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1\n from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of\n submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of\n the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): \"AGAINT\" is a variant spelling of\n\"AGAINST\", not a customary synonym for \"FOR\", despite its former\nprivate usage with the latter meaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008\nAmended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008\nAmended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497339,'rcs','00000001.00000933',2125,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1230022469,'Rule 2125/4 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n A regulated action is an action satisfying any of the following:\n\n a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.\n\n b) It is ILLEGAL.\n\n c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action CANNOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while\n certain conditions are satisfied. Such an action MAY NOT be\n performed except as allowed by the rules.\n\n e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which\n some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Such an action\n CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the\n rules.\n\n f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and\n has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497340,'rcs','00000001.00000933',2150,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Personhood','Personhood',1230022469,'Rule 2150/6 (Power=3)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity defined as such by rules with power of at\n least 2. A person CAN generally be the subject of rights and\n obligations under the rules.\n\n Any biological organism that is generally capable of\n communicating by email in English (including via a translation\n service) is a person.\n\n A first-class person is a person of a biological nature. All\n other persons are second-class.\n\n The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5760 (comex), 16 October 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5790 (Murphy), 22 October 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497341,'rcs','00000001.00000933',478,'Amended(27) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Fora','Fora',1230022469,'Rule 478/27 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent\n to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to\n be public.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a person performs that action by unambiguously\n and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs\n it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at\n the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1905 (called 7 February 2008): Regardless of CFJ 1314, a message\nhas not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to\nreceive messages via the forum receive it.]\n\n[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion\nForum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not\nqualify as sending it to all players.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the\nmessage body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not\nhave such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual\narrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement\non behalf of another.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008\nAmended(26) by proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497338,'rcs','00000001.00000932',754,'Amended(9) by Proposal 6021 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1230022261,'Rule 754/9 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning when used in any Rule of equal or lesser power, as\n do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by\n the rules.\n\n The following clauses, where X and Y are both nouns or noun\n phrases, SHOULD be interpreted as \"X is/are defined as Y\":\n\n a) \"X is/are Y\"\n b) \"Y is/are known as X\"\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning. In\n determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term,\n definitions contained in lower-powered Rules, followed by\n definitions used in contracts or other Agoran legal\n documents, SHOULD be used for guidance.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player\'s legal name (legal in eir\ncountry of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to\nem.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been\nexplicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not\nimplicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a\nmeaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does\nnot unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a\nmeaning.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without\nsurrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate\nanything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the\nURI.]\n\n[CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI\nby default have no significance other than their functional role as\npart of the URI.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5834 (Goethe), 12 November 2008\nAmended(9) by Proposal 6021 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497336,'rcs','00000001.00000931',2234,'Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008','Rewarding Contestmasters','Rewarding Contestmasters',1230022106,'Rule 2234/0 (Power=2)\nRewarding Contestmasters\n\n As soon as possible after the end of a month, for each contest\n and each of its axes, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by\n announcement award N points to the player (if any) who\n was its contestmaster for at at least 16 days during that month\n and performed duties related to that contest in a timely manner\n during that month, where N is the number of players who were\n contestants of that contest at any time during that month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008'),(497337,'rcs','00000001.00000931',2187,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008','Win by High Score','Win by High Score',1230022106,'Rule 2187/4 (Power=2)\nWin by High Score\n\n Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x\n + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all\n those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score.\n\n Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0.\n All other players have each of eir coordinates set to\n floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that\n axis and S is the Score Index.\n\n The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the\n Scorekeepor\'s report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score\n Index with Agoran consent.\n\n If no players have won by High Score in the past four months,\n then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support.\n When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking\n points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes\n double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in\n overtime when someone wins by High Score.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008'),(497333,'rcs','00000001.00000929',2231,'Created by Proposal 6016 (OscarMeyr), 18 December 2008','Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic','Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic',1229666054,'Rule 2231/0 (Power=2)\nOrder of the Hero of Agora Nomic\n\n The set of patent titles defined in this rule constitute the\n Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic; the titles may be collectively\n referred to as \"Heroic titles\" and a Bearer of a Heroic title as\n a Hero.\n\n Heroic titles are Agora\'s premier titles of distinction, and may\n be awarded to persons for meritorious service only by a proposal\n of power 3 or greater. Heroic titles SHOULD NOT be revoked.\n Heroes are entitled to use the abbreviation of eir title as\n postnomial letters in Agora communications and reports.\n\n The Heroic titles in decreasing precedence are:\n\n Grand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title may be awarded to\n any person for the most exemplary meritorious service to Agora\n or to the game of Nomic at large. As this title is the highest\n honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be\n treated right good forever.\n\n Hero of Agora Nomic (HAN) -- This title may be awarded to any\n person for outstanding meritorious service to Agora above and\n beyond the call of duty.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6016 (OscarMeyr), 18 December 2008'),(497334,'rcs','00000001.00000931',2179,'Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008','Points','Points',1230022106,'Rule 2179/5 (Power=2)\nPoints\nRule 2179/4 (Power=2)\n For each point axis:\n\n a) Points is a fixed currency.\n\n b) A player\'s coordinate (syn. score) is the\n number of points e owns.\n\n There are two point axes, X and Y. A player\'s score is x + yi,\n where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate.\n\n Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is\n secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the\n same power threshold.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players,\n subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram),\n 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009\n\n\nRule 2136/28 (Power=2)\nContests\nRule 2136/26 (Power=2)\n Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the\n Scorekeepor, with values \'none\' (default) and all first-class\n players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is\n Notary, with a default value of \'none\', and a set of possible\n values which consists of all first-class players and \'none\'.\n\n A public contract is a contest if and only if it has a\n contestmaster other than \'none\'.\n following are true:\n\n a) The contract is private.\n\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a\n member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster\n b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster of\n multiple contests sharing an axis.\n player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster\n of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the\n contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered\n explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.)\n\n Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by\n that contract for flipping its contestmaster.\n\n Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip\n the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to\n that contract; and if a contract\'s contestmaster ceases to be\n party to that contract, that contract\'s contestmaster is flipped\n to \'none\'.\n\n Changes to contestmaster are secured.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008\nAmended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008\nAmended(27) by Proposal 6037 (Goethe), 13 January 2009\nAmended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009\n\nRule 2232/0 (Power=2)\nContest Axes\n\n Each contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}.\n\n An axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows,\n provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of\n multiple contests sharing an axis:\n\n a) by any player without 3 objections, or\n\n b) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its\n axes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008'),(497335,'rcs','00000001.00000931',2233,'Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008','Awarding and Revoking Points','Awarding and Revoking Points',1230022106,'Rule 2233/0 (Power=2)\nAwarding and Revoking Points\n\n For each of a contest\'s axes, where N is the number of its\n parties that were active first-class players at the beginning of\n the week:\n\n a) A contest CAN award a total of 5N points per week.\n Its contestmaster CAN award points (up to this total) to\n its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as\n explicitly described in its contract.\n\n b) A contest CAN revoke a total of 2N points per week.\n Its contestmaster CAN revoke such points (up to this total)\n from its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as\n explicitly described in its contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008'),(497357,'rcs','00000001.00000936',2198,'Amended(5) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)','Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)',1230366672,'Rule 2198/3 (Power=2)\nRule 2198/3 (Power=2)\n\n Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a\n mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then\n such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism.\n\n If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n it, than any person CAN become a party to it by announcement.\n If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two,\n then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all\n the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the\n contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without\n Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): \"Agreement between all parties\"\ncan only exist if there are at least two parties.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5677 (ihope; disi.), 3 September 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008\n\n\nRule 2178/5 (Power=2)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A public contract is a contract that has been identified as\n such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are\n private.\n\n A party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least\n one of the following is true:\n\n (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public.\n\n (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating\n unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public.\n\n (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published\n without objection of its parties, that the contract be\n public.\n\n (d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication,\n contains a clause or indication that the contract is a\n pledge.\n\n A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by\n publishing its text and list of parties.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear\n indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then\n it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do\n not become effective until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe),\n 16 January 2008\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008\nPower changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.),\n 29 October 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497356,'rcs','00000001.00000936',2145,'Amended(6) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Partnerships','Partnerships',1230366672,'Rule 2145/6 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A partnership is a contract that devolves each of its legal\n obligations onto at least one of its parties, but does not\n devolve all of them solely onto one of its parties. The members\n of a partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s\n legal obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s\n identity and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains\n at least two persons is a person.\n\n If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings,\n e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the\n crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate\n sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the\n partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is\n not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or\n would not adequately apply responsibility.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership\'s\nlegal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a\ncontract other than the partnership.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\n[CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a\npartnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that\ncontract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008\nAmended(6) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497355,'rcs','00000001.00000935',2164,'Amended(3) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1230366250,'Rule 2164/3 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. Such a recusal is with cause if and only\n if e has been assigned to the case for at least four days.\n\n An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current\n judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the\n new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be\n assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same\n announcement) assigns a judgement to a judicial question in that\n case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497354,'rcs','00000001.00000935',1868,'Amended(13) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1230366250,'Rule 1868/13 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal \"with cause\" is a recusal defined as\n such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(497353,'rcs','00000001.00000935',2175,'Amended(4) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1230366250,'Rule 2175/4 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n A new case is a judicial case (other than an appeal case) that\n has not had any judge assigned to it. The initiator of a new\n case CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to\n be a judicial case.\n\n An excess case is a new case whose initiator previously\n initiated five or more cases during the same week as that case.\n The Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse an excess case by\n announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008\nAmended(4) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008'),(404385,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1020,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1484, Mar. 15 1995','Name Is Agora','Name Is Agora',990206480,'Rule 1020/0 (Power=3)\nName Is Agora\n\n The Official Name of this Nomic shall be Agora.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 913, ca. May 4 1994\nTransmuted from MI=1 to MI=Unanimity by Proposal 1020, Sep. 4 1994\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1484, Mar. 15 1995'),(404386,'rcs','00000001.00000001',101,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999','Obey the Rules','Obey the Rules',990206480,'Rule 101/1 (Power=3)\nObey the Rules\n\n All Players must always abide by all the Rules currently in\n effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect.\n However, a Player besides the Speaker may always deregister\n rather than continue to play.\n\n Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is\n permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing\n the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or\n implicitly permit it. Any change to the game state which would\n make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the Rules\n by any combination of actions by Players does not occur, any\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n The Rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of\n the first game. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116\n (Immutable) and 201-219 (Mutable).\n\n[CFJ ???: \"abide by all the Rules\" means the Rules as a whole, not\n necessarily each individual Rule.\n CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.\n CFJ 825: Players would have to obey the Rules even if 101 were\n repealed.\n CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999'),(404387,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1011,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3900 (Elysion), Sep. 6 1999','Definition of Nomic Property','Definition of Nomic Property',990206480,'Rule 1011/4 (Power=2)\nDefinition of Nomic Property\n\n A Nomic Property is any property of any entity the value of\n which is defined by the Rules. Other Rules may define\n procedures by which the value of a Nomic Property may be\n changed.\n\n[CFJ 700: Neither nicknames nor Players are \"created by the Nomic\n Rules, and exist only within the context of Agora Nomic.\"\n CFJs 815 & 816: If an amendment is made which changes the properties\n of an Entity, the Entity changes to conform to the new Rule, rather\n than the destruction of the old Entities. If the old Entity has\n the same name as the new Entity, that implies continuity of that\n Entity if at all possible.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 450 (Alexx), Sep. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1011, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1593, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2546, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2630, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3900 (Elysion), Sep. 6 1999'),(404388,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1527,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4150 (Elysion), 13 May 2001','Timing of Multiple Events in One Message','Timing of Multiple Events in One Message',990206480,'Rule 1527/3 (Power=1)\nTiming of Multiple Events in One Message\n\n Whenever a message contains more than one action -- such as a\n notification, report, or other communication -- on which the\n Rules place some legal significance, the actions in that message\n shall be taken to have been sent sequentially in the order which\n they appear in the message.\n\n If a message attempts to perform multiple actions simultaneously\n without explicitly stating a specific order for the actions,\n then the attempt shall be considered ambiguous and without\n effect if the gamestate would be substantively different for any\n two orderings of the actions. For the purposes of this test, the\n actual order the actions are performed in is not considered\n substantive, but other differences may, at the discretion of a\n judge, be considered substantive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1750, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4150 (Elysion), 13 May 2001'),(404389,'rcs','00000001.00000001',754,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999','Spelling, Quoting, and Terminology','Spelling, Quoting, and Terminology',990206480,'Rule 754/4 (Power=1)\nSpelling, Quoting, and Terminology\n\n Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the\n substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,\n are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long\n as there is no ambiguity in meaning. A Player shall not be\n penalised for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement,\n Judgement, the words of another Player, or other reference.\n\n Except when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any\n mathematical term in the Rules shall be construed to have its\n standard mathematical meaning. In particular, \"number\" shall\n mean \"real number\".\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 712: This includes referring to a Player by a method other than\n eir name or nickname, as long as it is unambiguous.\n CFJ 744: In the context of Rule Changes, text in an existing Rule\n must be quoted exactly in order to be unambiguous.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999'),(404390,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1497,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4148 (Kelly), 13 May 2001','Truth in Advertising','Truth in Advertising',990206480,'Rule 1497/7 (Power=1)\nTruth in Advertising\n\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of evidence submitted in support of a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement, or in response to a Judicial or\n Appellate Order requiring that Player to disclose information\n known to that Player, commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.\n\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of a public message, as any part of a response to a request for\n information where that Player was required to respond, or as\n part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then\n required to act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered\n an Officer.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, a false statement of fact is made\n \"willfully\" when the Player making it, at the time the statement\n was made, has the intention to make a false statement of fact\n and knowledge that the statement actually made was false.\n Particularly, a Player who makes a false statement of fact\n through excusable negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable\n reliance on the representations of another, shall not be\n considered to have willfully made a false statement of fact.\n\n A conclusion as to the interpretation of the Rules or their\n application to a particular situation is not a \"statement of\n fact\".\n\n[CFJ 827: If it is not clear that information is *not* presented\n as correct, it is. Attempting an illegal move can, if the Player\n reports the move and knows it to be illegal, be a violation of this\n Rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1667, Aug. 18 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 10 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2043, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2548, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2614, Jun. 1 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4148 (Kelly), 13 May 2001'),(404391,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1926,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001','The Official Secrets Act','The Official Secrets Act',990206480,'Rule 1926/1 (Power=1)\nThe Official Secrets Act\n\n The Rules may designate certain pieces of information to\n be secret. Any player who knowingly reveals secret information\n to another player, except as explicitly permitted or required\n by the rules, commits the Crime of Unlawful Disclosure, a Class\n 5 Crime. All secret information is deemed private, with respect\n to the Freedom of Information Act.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3952 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001'),(404392,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1478,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000','Executors','Executors',990206480,'Rule 1478/4 (Power=1)\nExecutors\n\n The Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the\n Rules to act on behalf of that entity, as if e were that entity.\n\n Except when the Rules stipulate otherwise, a Player is eir own\n Executor. Any other entity has an Executor only when the Rules\n specify either a Player or a means to designate a Player to be\n the Executor of that entity.\n\n Whenever a Player is acting on behalf of some entity of which e\n is the Executor other than emself, e must make it clear that e\n is doing so. If such a Player fails to clearly indicate that e\n is acting as the Executor of some other entity, it shall be\n presumed that e is acting on eir own behalf.\n\n Only a person or an entity with a Player Executor may perform\n actions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2514, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3516 (General Chaos), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000'),(404393,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1630,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Impersonation','Impersonation',990206480,'Rule 1630/3 (Power=1)\nImpersonation\n\n Any Player who knowingly attempts to act as, or purports to be,\n the Executor of an Entity, of which e is not the Executor,\n commits the Class 4 Crime of Impersonation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2606, May 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 12 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1630, Oct. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404394,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1727,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',990206480,'Rule 1727/9 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June\n 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by First\n Speaker Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think\n we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules\n are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was\n played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its official\n name of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the\n hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent\n advice of Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as close as practical to Agora\'s\n Birthday (June 30 at 00:04:30 GMT+1200), the Payroll Clerk\n shall transfer 50 Stems from the Bank to each Player;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Payroll Clerk shall transfer\n 25 Stems from the Bank to each Player who, during Agora\'s\n Birthday, publicly recognizes Agora\'s Birthday; but no Player\n shall receive more than one such transfer during each year\'s\n Birthday Celebration.\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary may select up to three\n Contests, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have as their\n purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and\n which Contests, in the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of\n recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to the\n Contestmaster of each such Contest 100 Stems;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on\n Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not\n publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of\n Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the\n Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge,\n Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player Execute an Application to Submit\n an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do\n take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this\n Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404395,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1586,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',990206480,'Rule 1586/2 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n No two Rule-defined entities shall have the same name or\n nickname.\n\n If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended\n such that they no longer define that entity, then that\n entity along with all its properties shall cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they\n still define that entity but with different properties,\n that entity and its properties shall continue to exist to\n whatever extent is possible under the new definitions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000'),(404396,'rcs','00000001.00000001',478,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','The Public Forum','The Public Forum',990206480,'Rule 478/11 (Power=1)\nThe Public Forum\n\n A Public Forum is a medium of communication so designated by\n the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be\n considered the equivalent of sending that message to all\n Players.\n\n A Discussion Forum is a medium of communication so designated\n by the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never be a Public\n Forum and messages sent to a Discussion Forum are never\n considered to have been sent to all Players.\n\n The Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to\n be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without\n Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made\n via the medium whose designation is being changed. Any\n designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be\n announced via all existing Public Fora in addition to any\n other requirements.\n\n It is the responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that\n e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum.\n Any inability of a Player to receive messages via a particular\n Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status\n as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive\n messages via any particular Discussion Forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media\n which are currently Public or Discussion Fora and sufficient\n data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive\n messages via that medium.\n\n Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall\n be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication\n which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or\n combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made\n publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it\n is intended to be public.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to publish certain information,\n then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the\n time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is\n required to publish.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to announce certain information,\n that announcement must be made publicly.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.\n CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.\n CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.\n CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: \"In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404397,'rcs','00000001.00000001',459,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4114 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001','The Nomic Week','The Nomic Week',990206480,'Rule 459/3 (Power=1)\nThe Nomic Week\n\n The Nomic Week begins at the midnight, GMT, that begins each\n Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which\n must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week.\n Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at the\n midnight, GMT, which begins the first day of the month. Any\n automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at the\n midnight, GMT, which begins the first day of each calendar\n quarter.\n\n Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events\n or classes of events. Any activity that must be performed at\n least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in\n the given period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 459 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4114 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001'),(404398,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1274,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3927 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999','Definition of Indices','Definition of Indices',990206480,'Rule 1274/2 (Power=3)\nDefinition of Indices\n\n An Index (plural: Indices) is a Nomic Property. The value of an\n Index shall be either a non-negative real number or the special\n value Unanimity.\n\n An Index of Unanimity is greater than any other Index. When\n comparing other Indices, the Index which is numerically greater\n is the greater Index.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1274, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2053, Dec. 19 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2713, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3927 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999'),(404399,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1688,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000','Power','Power',990206480,'Rule 1688/1 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n Power is an Index. An Instrument is an entity with nonzero\n Power. The Power of a given entity is zero unless otherwise\n defined by the Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000'),(404400,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1869,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999','Restrictions on Setting Power','Restrictions on Setting Power',990206480,'Rule 1869/1 (Power=3)\nRestrictions on Setting Power\n\n Except as described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power\n of another entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing\n the Power to be so set. A Rule may set the Power of an adopted\n Proposal, even exceeding the Power of the Rule, so long as the\n Power of the adopted Proposal does not exceed the Voting Index\n of that Proposal.\n\n No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater\n than its own.\n\n No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999'),(404401,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1023,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000','Definition of \"As Soon As Possible\"','Definition of \"As Soon As Possible\"',990206480,'Rule 1023/14 (Power=2)\nDefinition of \"As Soon As Possible\"\n\n Whenever a Player is required to perform an action \"as soon\n as possible\", then e is required to perform the action within\n a week.\n\n A Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the\n Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a penalty.\n\n Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to\n Inactive Players without conflicting with this Rule.\n\n[CFJ 1075: Rule 1023 should be interpreted such that no Rule with\n lower precedence than it can succeed in prohibiting activity of a\n purely discussionary nature.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000'),(404402,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1079,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2806, Feb. 8 1997, substantial','Definition of \"Random\"','Definition of \"Random\"',990206480,'Rule 1079/2 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Random\"\n\n When a rule requires a random choice, that choice shall be made\n among all the possible choices with equal probability.\n\n Because of the impossibility of finding a truly random test,\n \"equal\", for the purposes of the above statement, shall mean\n \"reasonably close to equal\". It is up to common sense to\n determine what is reasonably close to equal; however, the burden\n of proof of a method\'s randomness lies with the Player who used\n the method.\n\n The probability of a Platonic solid or coin, which is not\n specially weighted, falling on any given face is, for the\n purposes of this Rule, close enough to equal to satisfy the\n above requirement.\n\n The Speaker shall make all random determinations required by the\n Rules except when the Rules specify another party to make the\n determination.\n\n[CFJ 790 contains a detailed discussion on what does and does not\n qualify as a random choice.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1079, ca. Oct. 11 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1648, Aug. 6 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2806, Feb. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)'),(404403,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1769,'Amended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001','Holidays','Holidays',990206480,'Rule 1769/2 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time, not to exceed 17 days in length,\n designated as such by the Rules. If one Holiday begins within\n 72 hours of the end of another Holiday, the two Holidays and the\n time between them are taken as a single Holiday, unless this\n would cause the combined Holiday to exceed 17 days in length, in\n which case the first Holiday is extended to 17 days and the\n second Holiday does not occur.\n\n During a Holiday, no Proposal may be distributed by the\n Promotor, nor may any Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of\n Appeal, Decision of Appeals Boards, or Opinion be published by\n the Clerk of the Courts; however, if any of the above do take\n place during the Holiday in violation of this Rule, this Rule\n does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001'),(404404,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1787,'Created by Proposal 3695 (Steve), Mar. 3 1998','April Fool\'s Day','April Fool\'s Day',990206480,'Rule 1787/0 (Power=1)\nApril Fool\'s Day\n\n A break from all the stress and strife\n and matters of much gravity,\n is what this Nomic sorely needs:\n a dithyramb to levity!\n\n In order that, just once a year,\n our hearts be light and gay,\n Let April Fool\'s Day, every year\n become a Holiday!\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3695 (Steve), Mar. 3 1998'),(404405,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1870,'Amended(1) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001','Merry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!','Merry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!',990206480,'Rule 1870/1 (Power=1)\nMerry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!\n\n The period commencing every year at midnight GMT on the morning\n of December 24, and concluding at the beginning of the first\n Nomic Week to commence after January 2, is a Holiday.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3819 (Steve), Dec. 28 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001'),(404406,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1750,'Created by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',990206480,'Rule 1750/0 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n In each year, the first Nomic Week falling entirely in\n February shall be designated \"Read the Ruleset Week\".\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997'),(404407,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1482,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',990206480,'Rule 1482/1 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\nCFJ 1103 (Judged TRUE, Aug. 21 1998): \"In the case of conflict\n between Rules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer\n to the lower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes\n precedence over Rule 1482.\"\n\n[CFJ 858: If a low-Power (low-MI at the time of Judgement of CFJ 858)\n Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule of higher Power to\n mean something other than its ordinary English meaning, that\n may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does must be\n decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)'),(404408,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1030,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',990206480,'Rule 1030/4 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\nCFJ 1104 (Judged TRUE, Sep. 9 1998): \"The presence in a Rule of\n deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does\n not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only\n how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does\n arise.\"\n\n[CFJs 1114 and 1115 (both Judged Feb. 5 1999): This Rule is to be\n applied to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just\n because a Rule is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict\n with a Rule of higher precedence does not mean that the Rule is\n nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 202, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)'),(404409,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1513,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000','Authority of Non-Rule Entities','Authority of Non-Rule Entities',990206480,'Rule 1513/4 (Power=1)\nAuthority of Non-Rule Entities\n\n The Rules may grant to certain entities the power to require\n Players to perform (or refrain from performing) actions. Such\n Entities shall have whatever power is granted to them by the\n Rules. In the event that the requirements of such an Entity\n conflicts with the Rules, the Rules shall always take\n precedence.\n\n If two or more such Entities conflict with one another, then the\n relative precedence of the respective Rules which grant coercive\n Power to the Entities in conflict shall determine which\n requirements take precedence. If two or more Entities\n authorized by the same Rule conflict, then the Entity mentioned\n first in that Rule takes precedence over the others.\n\n No entity (including any body of text) may require a Player to\n perform or refrain from performing any action unless that\n Player has previously been provided with the information of\n which actions may be required of or prohibited em by that\n entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1704, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2805 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000'),(404410,'rcs','00000001.00000001',869,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','Registered Players','Registered Players',990206480,'Rule 869/11 (Power=1)\nRegistered Players\n\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A\n Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player\n is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 12 previous months, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends two months afterwards. A Player is only subject to the\n Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period ends, e becomes Ready.\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404411,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1677,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','Currency Awards for New Players','Currency Awards for New Players',990206480,'Rule 1677/9 (Power=1)\nCurrency Awards for New Players\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a Player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall Order the Treasuror to pay out the\n New Player Award for each Bank Currency to the new Player.\n\n Whenever the Rules indicate that the Bank incurs a debt to an\n entity equal to the New Player Award, the Bank shall instead\n incur for each Bank Currency a debt to that entity equal to the\n New Player Award for that Currency.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404412,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1976,'Created by Proposal 4143 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001','Mentor\'s Bonus','Mentor\'s Bonus',990206480,'Rule 1976/0 (Power=1)\nMentor\'s Bonus\n\n In the four weeks immediately after eir Grace Period ends, a\n Player can award a Mentor\'s Bonus to any other player e deems\n to have been most helpful to em as a new Player. E can only\n make one such award. A Zombie may not make such an award.\n\n The award is made by public announcement. Upon such an\n announcement the Bank shall incur a debt to the named Mentor\n equal to the New Player Award.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4143 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001'),(404413,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1970,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001','The Usuror','The Usuror',990206480,'Rule 1970/1 (Power=1)\nThe Usuror\n\n The Office of the Usuror is hereby established.\n\n The Usuror shall have a Budget. The Usuror\'s Budget shall\n consist of the following items:\n\n (i) The Basic Fee for issuing Bonds. This Fee shall be\n expressed as a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary and\n shall be an integral multiple of 0.1, not less than 0, and\n not greater than 4.\n\n (ii) The purchase rates at which the Bank will buy Bonds in\n Stems. These rates are expressed as percentages, in the\n range 0% to 100% inclusive. Each purchase rate applies\n only to a single combination of face value and time to\n maturity. Different rates may apply to different such\n combinations. Any combination for which no rate is\n specified has a purchase rate of 0%.\n\n (iii) The Credit Limit, which is a multiple of the Basic\n Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001'),(404414,'rcs','00000001.00000001',103,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999','The Speaker May Not Deregister','The Speaker May Not Deregister',990206480,'Rule 103/1 (Power=3)\nThe Speaker May Not Deregister\n\n At any time, there is exactly one Player who is the Speaker. The\n Speaker may not deregister or be deregistered for any reason,\n any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999'),(404415,'rcs','00000001.00000001',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',990206480,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(404416,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1016,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998','Putting Oneself On Hold','Putting Oneself On Hold',990206480,'Rule 1016/11 (Power=2)\nPutting Oneself On Hold\n\n At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold.\n This status shall not be changed except as specified in the\n Rules.\n\n When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold.\n\n An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e announces in the\n Public Forum that e goes On Hold.\n\n An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e announces in the\n Public Forum that e comes Off Hold. E may not do so until at\n least 96 hours after e last went On Hold.\n\n \"Active\" and \"Inactive\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"Off Hold\"\n and \"On Hold\", respectively.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998'),(404417,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1584,'Created by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996','Absolvement of Duty for On Hold Players','Absolvement of Duty for On Hold Players',990206480,'Rule 1584/0 (Power=2)\nAbsolvement of Duty for On Hold Players\n\n An On Hold Player is not permitted to Vote on Proposals, make\n Proposals, or hold Office, and cannot be required by the Rules\n to perform any duty or action, unless that Rule specifically\n states that it can require On Hold Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over every other Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996'),(404418,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1043,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000','Deregistration','Deregistration',990206480,'Rule 1043/5 (Power=1)\nDeregistration\n\n A Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by\n sending a public message announcing eir deregistration. A Player\n who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective\n at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em\n to reregister before thirty days have passed are without effect.\n This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be\n reregistered before thirty days have passed after eir\n deregistration.\n\n[CFJ 810: If a Player deregisters as well as doing other things\n in the same message, Rule 1527 applies.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 474 (Alexx), Sep. 17 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1043, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1305, Nov. 4 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000'),(404419,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1042,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001','Zombification Due to Silence','Zombification Due to Silence',990206480,'Rule 1042/15 (Power=1)\nZombification Due to Silence\n\n Each Player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more\n than one of these. Whenever a Player posts to a Public Forum,\n or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy.\n\n Any Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet\n within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player\n to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly\n identifying that Player, in a Public Forum. If a Player has\n been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a\n Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes\n Silent.\n\n Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly\n alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A\n Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As\n soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has\n abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny\n that the Player is a Zombie.\n\n If a Speaker has abandoned the game, e commits the Class 15\n Crime of Speaker Abandonment, to be detected and reported by any\n Player. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes\n Speaker. The previous Speaker then becomes a Zombie.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404420,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1884,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4132 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001','Zombie Masters','Zombie Masters',990206480,'Rule 1884/4 (Power=1)\nZombie Masters\n\n Zombies are Property. The owner of a Zombie is called eir\n Master. Whenever a Player becomes a Zombie, eir Master is the\n Bank.\n\n Whenever the Master of a Zombie is a Player, e has Power of\n Attorney for that Zombie, unless the Rules withdraw it from\n em.\n\n The Registrar is the Recordkeepor of each Zombie.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4118 (Goethe), Mar. 6 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4132 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001'),(404421,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1885,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4118 (Goethe), Mar. 6 2001','Zombie Auctions','Zombie Auctions',990206480,'Rule 1885/3 (Power=1)\nZombie Auctions\n\n Whenever the Bank possesses a Zombie which is neither currently\n being Auctioned nor for which an Auction has been completed but\n the debt arising therefore not yet paid, the Registrar shall\n initiate an Auction for the sale of that Zombie.\n\n All Auctions of Bank-owned Zombies shall be conducted as\n follows:\n (1) The Auctioneer shall be the Registrar.\n (2) The Auction Currency shall be Indulgences.\n (3) The Starting Price shall be number of Blots of the Zombie\n being Auctioned; or, if the Zombie has no Blots, one\n Indulgence.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of a Zombie Auction, the\n Registrar shall expunge any Blots the Zombie has, notifying the\n Herald of this action.\n\n If there are no winning bids for a Zombie during a Zombie\n Auction, that Zombie is deregistered.\n\n The Registrar is a Limited Executor of the Bank, with the\n authority to satisfy debts of Zombies owed by the Bank to its\n creditors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4118 (Goethe), Mar. 6 2001'),(404422,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1948,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4132 (Elysion), Apr. 5 2001','Zombie Transfer Tax','Zombie Transfer Tax',990206480,'Rule 1948/3 (Power=1)\nZombie Transfer Tax\n\n As soon as possible after a Zombie is transferred from a Player\n to another entity, the Registrar shall bill that Zombie\'s former\n Master prorated Maintenance on that Zombie.\n\n The amount of prorated Maintenance on a Zombie shall be equal\n to 0.1 Indulgence for each three days (or part thereof) elapsed\n between the time that Player most recently took possession\n of that Zombie, and the time that the transfer occurred, with a\n maximum of 1 Indulgence.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4078 (Peekee), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4132 (Elysion), Apr. 5 2001'),(404423,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1886,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4134 (harvel) Apr. 5 2001','Vivification Due to Noise','Vivification Due to Noise',990206480,'Rule 1886/2 (Power=1)\nVivification Due to Noise\n\n If a Zombie becomes Noisy, eir Master ceases to own em, and\n e ceases to be a Zombie.\n\n Unless the Zombie was owned by the Bank when e became Noisy,\n then, as soon as possible, the Registrar shall pay out to the\n Zombie\'s most recent Master a number of Indulgences equal\n to the starting price in that Zombie\'s most recent Auction,\n halved for each new calendar month since the end of the Auction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Propoal 3958 (Murphy), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4134 (harvel) Apr. 5 2001'),(404424,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1789,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',990206480,'Rule 1789/2 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Write of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404425,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1755,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001','No Non-Player Responsibilities','No Non-Player Responsibilities',990206480,'Rule 1755/5 (Power=1)\nNo Non-Player Responsibilities\n\n When a player becomes deregistered or a Zombie, e ceases to be\n a candidate, officer, judge, or in general to occupy any role or\n position to which a Rule assigns any duties or powers. No one\n who is not registered, or who is a Zombie, may occupy such a\n role or position. This rule takes precedence over rules which\n would prevent em from ceasing to occupy such a role or position.\n\n The foregoing paragraph shall not apply to the Bearing of Patent\n Titles, or any position which a Rule specifically says may be\n held by a non-Player or Zombie, nor shall it act to prevent a\n non-Player or Zombie from registering, calling CFJs, or doing\n things that non-Players and Zombies are generally able to do.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3622 (elJefe), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposl 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001'),(404426,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1841,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Granting Power of Attorney','Granting Power of Attorney',990206480,'Rule 1841/2 (Power=1)\nGranting Power of Attorney\n\n Any Player who has been continuously registered for two or more\n months is empowered to give another willing Player eir Power of\n Attorney for a specified period of time. The giving Player\n shall be known, for this Rule, as the Grantor. The receiving\n Player shall be known, for this Rule, as the Holder.\n\n Power of Attorney is given by the Grantor publicly announcing\n such, naming the Holder e is giving the Power of Attorney to and\n the time period for which the Power of Attorney is given. To be\n effective, this post must name a time that begins within the\n week following the posting. The Power of Attorney shall not be\n granted unless the Holder is an active Player and consents\n publicly before the beginning of the specified period of time.\n\n If the grant is effective, the Holder shall then have the Power\n of Attorney beginning at the specified time. This grant shall\n end when one of the following occurs;\n\n i) The period specified expires.\n ii) The Grantor posts publicly that e is withdrawing eir Power\n of Attorney.\n iii) The Grantor is deregistered, or goes On Hold.\n iv) The Holder is deregistered, or goes On Hold\n v) It has been over three months since the Grantor gave eir\n Power of Attorney to the Holder.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404427,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1842,'Created by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998','Power of Attorney','Power of Attorney',990206480,'Rule 1842/0 (Power=1)\nPower of Attorney\n\n In certain specified circumstances the Rules may grant one\n Player, hereafter called the Holder, Power of Attorney for\n another Player, hereafter called the Grantor. Such a grant\n shall only occur when specified by the Rules, and shall last\n only as long as the Rules permit.\n\n When the Holder is granted Power of Attorney for the Grantor,\n that means that the Holder becomes the sole Executor for the\n Grantor for as long as e has that Power of Attorney.\n\n No Player is permitted to have Power of Attorney for more than\n two other Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998'),(404428,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1960,'Created by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','Roles','Roles',990206480,'Rule 1960/0 (Power=1)\nRoles\n\n Each player may have a Role, which is one of the following:\n\n (a) Politician,\n (b) Scribe,\n (c) Acolyte.\n\n A Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a\n Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous\n roles. Initially players do not have any role.\n\n A Player who has no role, or a player who has not changed\n eir role in the past 3 months, may change roles by announcing\n publicly what role e is changing to.\n\n The Registrar shall keep track of each player\'s role, and\n include it in eir report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404429,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1006,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000','Definition of Office','Definition of Office',990206480,'Rule 1006/8 (Power=1)\nDefinition of Office\n\n An Office is a position so designated by the Rules.\n\n Each Office is always held by exactly one Player (called an\n Officer). Each Office shall be held by the Speaker unless\n otherwise specified.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000'),(404430,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1686,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Official Reports','Official Reports',990206480,'Rule 1686/8 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n For each Office, the Rules may designate certain information to\n be part of that Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. All\n Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports shall also be known as\n Official Reports. All information which is part of an Officer\'s\n Official Report(s) shall be maintained by that Officer.\n\n Each Officer with a Weekly Report is required to publish that\n Report during each Nomic Week, else e shall be Guilty of the\n Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. Each Officer with a\n Monthly Report is required to publish that Report during each\n Nomic Month, else e shall be Guilty of the Class 2 Infraction\n of Failure to Report. The Infraction of Failure to Report may\n be detected and reported by the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n or the Speaker.\n\n If an Officer with a Weekly Report fails to publish that Report\n during three consecutive Nomic Weeks, e commits the Class\n 10 Crime of Dereliction of Duty. If an Officer with a Monthly\n Report fails to publish that Report during three consecutive\n Nomic Months, e commits the Class 10 Crime of Dereliction of\n Duty. Any Officer found Guilty of Dereliction of Duty shall be\n immediately retired from Office. No player may be found Guilty\n of Dereliction of Duty more than once each quarter for any\n particular Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404431,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1064,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Freedom of Information Act','Freedom of Information Act',990206480,'Rule 1064/9 (Power=1)\nFreedom of Information Act\n\n If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of\n records, these records must be available for perusal, unless\n such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player\n who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records\n to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to\n so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e\n commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class 2 Crime, unless the\n Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e\n reports this fact, with explanation, within one week.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes\n currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under\n consideration, are designated as private until the end of the\n Voting Period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 488 (Alexx), Sep. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1064, ca. Oct. 11 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Oct. 11 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1344, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1672, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2631, Jul. 4 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404432,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1431,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Claims of Error','Claims of Error',990206480,'Rule 1431/15 (Power=1)\nClaims of Error\n\n A Claim of Error is a public message to the effect that a\n specific public communication misrepresents the actual Game\n State, and documenting the nature of the error.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial\n of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is\n admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to\n post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message\n which was in error, before one week passes from the time the\n Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does\n not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that\n Claim.\n\n A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the\n Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one\n week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:\n * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error\n * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before\n * another message by the same Player has corrected the error\n * the Claim is in dispute\n\n A Player who fails to post a Response within the allotted time\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be\n reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who\n incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of\n Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the\n Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.\n\n[CFJ 919: A PF message correcting an earlier PF message by the\n same player constitutes both a COE and the Response.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1431 (Kelly), Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1491, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1643, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2424, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2492, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2561, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3456 (Murphy), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3528 (Steve), Jul. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4047 (Taral), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404433,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1550,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial','Ratification','Ratification',990206480,'Rule 1550/2 (Power=1)\nRatification\n\n Any Official Document (as specified in other Rules) may be\n ratified by the operation of an adopted Proposal (but no other\n sort of instrument). The instrument must specify an Official\n Document (as specified in other Rules) which is subject to\n ratification.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial'),(404434,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1791,'Created by Proposal 3700 (Swann), Mar. 19 1998','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',990206480,'Rule 1791/0 (Power=1)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n Any Officer who holds an Office in Normal Fashion can Ratify an\n Official Report Without Objection, provided the following\n conditions hold;\n\n i) The Report to be Ratified is one that is legally\n permissible to Ratify.\n ii) The Report to be Ratified was produced by the Player\n holding the Office.\n iii) The Report to be Ratified is one that is required to be\n produced and maintained by the Officer.\n\n A Speaker who is not Tainted is permitted to Ratify any Official\n Report Without Objection provided that the Report is one legally\n permissible to Ratify.\n\n A COE on any Report undergoing this process shall be deemed by\n the Rules to constitute an Objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3700 (Swann), Mar. 19 1998'),(404435,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1551,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Documents Subject to Ratification','Documents Subject to Ratification',990206480,'Rule 1551/5 (Power=1)\nDocuments Subject to Ratification\n\n The ratification of an Official Document conforms the Game State\n to what it would be if the valid Official Document thus ratified\n was completely true and accurate at the time the Document was\n published. In other words, the State of the Game, upon such\n ratification, becomes that specified within the Document, plus\n all subsequent legal changes between the time of its publication\n and its ratification.\n\n All Game State changes due to the ratification of an Official\n Document occur at the time of such ratification; no retroactive\n effect is expressed or implied.\n\n A Document, once ratified, is for all legal purposes a true and\n accurate report. The Game State it references may not be\n retroactively modified prior to the time it was published, even\n to reflect a prior mistake, retracted or illegal move, or an\n Order. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would\n allow such retroactive alterations or corrections to the Game\n State.\n\n In no way does the ratification of a Document invalidate,\n reverse, alter or cancel any prior moves or transfers, even\n unrecorded or overlooked ones. Nor does the ratification of a\n Document change the legality or illegality of any prior move.\n Ratification only adjusts the actual Game State to conform to\n that perceived by the Players and Officers in Official\n Documentation.\n\n After a Document has been ratified, the Player in charge of\n maintaining that Document shall annotate all subsequent\n publications of that Document with the date of publication of\n the last such publication that was ratified.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404436,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1552,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Requirements for Ratification','Requirements for Ratification',990206480,'Rule 1552/3 (Power=1)\nRequirements for Ratification\n\n In order for an Official Document to be valid for the purpose of\n a Ratification, it must satisfy all the following criteria at\n the time the Proposal which would Ratify it is Proposed:\n\n i) The Rules require some specific Player to produce and/or\n maintain the document.\n ii) The Rules required it to be published. (A requirement\n that it be sent to all Players fulfills this criterion.)\n iii) It is not currently subject to a Claim of Error. (COE)\n iv) It is not currently subject to a pending Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), or a pending Appeal of a CFJ.\n v) The information within the Document has not been\n superseded by a subsequent Document.\n vi) The Document is not the Ruleset. The Ruleset is\n specifically excluded from Ratification.\n\n Further, a Document can become invalid during the Voting Period\n of a Proposal which would Ratify it if any of the following\n occurs:\n\n i) The Document is superseded by a subsequent Document\n which contradicts the information in the prior Document.\n This does not apply if there is a COE alleging the\n contradiction is an error, and the error is admitted\n before the end of the Proposal\'s Voting Period.\n ii) A COE is made on the Document, and the COE has not been\n denied before the end of the Proposal\'s Voting\n Period.\n iii) The Document becomes subject to a pending CFJ or a\n pending appeal of a CFJ.\n\n If, during the Voting Period of a Proposal to Ratify a\n Document, another Document is issued that does not contradict\n the prior Document, it does not alter the validity of the prior\n Document.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3510 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404437,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1919,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000','Installing Officers through Proposal','Installing Officers through Proposal',990206480,'Rule 1919/1 (Power=2)\nInstalling Officers through Proposal\n\n A Player may be Installed into an Office by the adoption of a\n Democratic Proposal. If that Office is already held by a Player,\n that Player is removed from the Office. The Player named in the\n Proposal then becomes the Electee to that Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3898 (Wes), Aug. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Propsoal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000'),(404438,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1555,'Amended(6) by Proposla 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000','Electees and Removal from Office','Electees and Removal from Office',990206480,'Rule 1555/6 (Power=1)\nElectees and Removal from Office\n\n A Player who wins an Election for an Office, or is installed\n into Office by a Proposal, becomes the Electee to that Office,\n as well as its holder.\n\n When the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office, e\n ceases to be the Electee to that Office, but continues to hold\n the Office.\n\n When the Electee to an Office is removed from that Office, e\n ceases to be Electee to that Office. Furthermore, if the Electee\n currently holds the Office, the Speaker becomes the holder of\n that Office, unless another Rule provides that a different\n Player is to hold the Office.\n\n When a non-Electee is removed from an Office and there is an\n Electee to that Office, then the Electee becomes the holder of\n the Office. If there is no Electee, the Office is held by the\n Speaker.\n\n If a Player goes On Hold, deregisters, is deregistered, or\n becomes a Zombie, e is removed from all Offices e holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2577, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2781 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3898 (Wes), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposla 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000'),(404439,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1556,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001','Terms of Service for Offices','Terms of Service for Offices',990206480,'Rule 1556/3 (Power=1)\nTerms of Service for Offices\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the Term of Service for an Office\n shall expire on the fifteenth day of the fourth month following\n the month in which the Officer in question was elected to that\n Office. At the exhaustion of an Office\'s Term of Service, the\n Officer holding that Office shall be retired from that Office.\n\n Other Rules may specify a different Term of Service for specific\n Offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3483 (favor), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001'),(404440,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1758,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','Holding an Office in Perpetuity','Holding an Office in Perpetuity',990206480,'Rule 1758/6 (Power=1)\nHolding an Office in Perpetuity\n\n If a Player is the Electee to an Office which e currently holds,\n then the Assistant Director of Personnel may declare, Without\n Objection, that that Player holds that Office in perpetuity.\n The Player then holds the Office in perpetuity.\n\n The Term of Service of an Office held in perpetuity shall never\n expire, and a Player holding an Office in perpetuity continues\n to hold the Office in perpetuity while e holds the Office. If\n a Player holding an Office in perpetuity delegates the Office\n to another Player, and e is still the Electee to the Office at\n the end of the Period of Delegation, then e resumes holding the\n Office in perpetuity.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules defining the expiry\n of an Office\'s Term of Service.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3637 (Blob), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3707 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Aug. 14 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404441,'rcs','00000001.00000001',880,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000','Resignation of Offices','Resignation of Offices',990206480,'Rule 880/6 (Power=1)\nResignation of Offices\n\n A Player may, at any time, resign from any Office which e\n currently holds.\n\n An Electee to an Office who resigns from that Office may\n appoint a successor at the time e resigns. In this case,\n the resigning Player is retired from that Office; if the\n named successor agrees publicly to be successor to the Office,\n the named successor becomes holder of the Office.\n\n A non-Electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee who\n does not name a successor, is immediately removed from\n Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 405 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 880, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1631, Jul. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2781 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000'),(404442,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1645,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Temporary Delegation of Office','Temporary Delegation of Office',990206480,'Rule 1645/8 (Power=1)\nTemporary Delegation of Office\n\n The Electee to an Office or the Speaker, if e holds that Office,\n is permitted to appoint another Player to perform the duties of\n that Office. This is called Delegation. The Player doing the\n appointing is herein referred to as the Delegating Player and\n the Player so appointed is herein referred to as the Delegated\n Player.\n\n An Office is legally Delegated if and only if the following\n conditions are met:\n\n (a) the Delegating Player has published a Notice of Delegation,\n naming the Office being Delegated and the Delegated Player;\n\n (b) the Delegated Player is permitted by the Rules to hold the\n Office at the commencement of the Period of Delegation;\n\n (c) the Delegated Player has published a Notice of Consent to\n Delegation for that Office during the seven days immediately\n preceding or immediately following the publishing of the\n Notice of Delegation.\n\n (d) the Delegating Player is still permitted to Delegate the\n Office at the commencement of the Period of Delegation;\n\n (e) the Period of Delegation has commenced and not yet\n concluded.\n\n The Period of Delegation commences at the time the Notice of\n Delegation is posted, or at the time the Notice of Consent to\n Delegation is posted, or at the time (if any) specified by the\n Delegating Player, whichever is latest. The Period of Delegation\n concludes when any of the following occur:\n\n (a) a Player other than the Delegating Player becomes the\n Electee to the Office;\n (b) the time (if any) specified by the Delegating Player as the\n end of the Period of Delegation is reached; or\n (c) the Delegated Office has been continuously Delegated for\n three weeks.\n\n During the Period of Delegation, the Delegating Player ceases to\n hold the Delegated Office; the Delegated Player holds the\n Office, and earns the Salary for that Office as described in\n other Rules.\n\n At the end of the Period of Delegation, the Delegated Player\n ceases to hold the Delegated Office, and the Electee to the\n Office commences holding the Office, if the Office has an\n Electee. If the Office has no Electee, then the Delegated Player\n continues to hold the Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2639 (Steve), Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2645, Aug. 15 1996\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Mar. 16 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3707 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4022 (Taral), Jun. 25 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404443,'rcs','00000001.00000001',790,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','Filling Vacant Offices','Filling Vacant Offices',990206480,'Rule 790/11 (Power=1)\nFilling Vacant Offices\n\n As soon as possible after an Office ceases to have an\n Electee (or is created without installing an Electee),\n the designated conductor of Office Elections shall\n initiate an Election for that Office, as described by\n other Rules.\n\n The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant\n Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is\n that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the\n designated conductor is the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 790, ca. Dec. 20 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2454, Feb. 6 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 28 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2639, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404444,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1486,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000','Procedure to Impeach an Officer','Procedure to Impeach an Officer',990206480,'Rule 1486/6 (Power=1)\nProcedure to Impeach an Officer\n\n Any Active Player is permitted to call a Referendum to\n Impeach an Officer at any time, by publicly requesting such.\n The Officer is Impeached when such a Referendum is passed.\n\n The Referendum must list both the Office and the current\n Electee to that Office by name. If upon passage of the\n Referendum the named Player is the current Electee of\n that Office, then the Player is immediately removed\n from Office.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for referenda is\n modified as follows: Vote Collector is the Player who called for\n the Impeachment Referendum. Voters do not include the Officer\n under consideration for Impeachment. Adoption Ratio must be\n greater than or equal to 2 for the Referendum to pass.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1638, Jul. 25 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2577, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2668, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000'),(404445,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1644,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','Dereliction of Duty','Dereliction of Duty',990206480,'Rule 1644/6 (Power=1)\nDereliction of Duty\n\n A Player who:\n\n (i) is the Electee to an Office which e currently holds, and\n whose duties include the weekly production of an Official\n Report, and\n (ii) fails in 3 consecutive weeks to produce the weekly Report\n for that Office\n\n commits the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty.\n Additionally, such a Player is removed from said Office.\n\n The Assistant Director of Personnel is the Officer authorized to\n detect and report the commission of Infractions of Dereliction\n of Duty by Officers other than the Assistant Director of\n Personnel. The Clerk of the Courts is the Officer authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of\n Dereliction of Duty by the Assistant Director of Personnel.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2638 (Steve), Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2731 (Steve), Oct. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404446,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1905,'Created by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999','The Cabinet','The Cabinet',990206480,'Rule 1905/0 (Power=1)\nThe Cabinet\n\n The set of Players consisting of the Speaker and all current\n Electees to Offices is called the Cabinet.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999'),(404447,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1665,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Abuse of Responsibility','Abuse of Responsibility',990206480,'Rule 1665/2 (Power=1)\nAbuse of Responsibility\n\n The Rules can give certain Officers latitude to make certain\n decisions and determinations based upon their judgement. When\n these decisions and determinations have effect on the Game\n State, Players shall always have the ability to make Claims of\n Error alleging that these decisions and determinations were made\n outside the authority given to the Officer. This Rule takes\n precedence over any Rule which otherwise defines a final arbiter\n for such decisions and determinations.\n\n If such a Claim is denied by the Officer, the Player making the\n Claim is then permitted to make a Call for Judgement alleging\n that the Officer is guilty of Abuse of Responsibility, a Class 4\n Crime. This is the only time such a CFJ is permitted.\n\n In Judging such a CFJ, to find the Officer guilty the Judge must\n establish that the Officer did one of the following:\n\n i) Went beyond all reasonable interpretations of the Rules.\n ii) That e disregarded explicit instructions the Rules gave in\n regard to eir decisions and determinations.\n iii) That e showed a pathological lack of judgement in such\n decisions and determinations.\n\n The accused Officer must be given the opportunity to explain eir\n actions. And such Judgements shall be made in accord to the\n strictest possible standard of proof.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2726, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404448,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1585,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4135 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001','Official Duties upon Officer Change','Official Duties upon Officer Change',990206480,'Rule 1585/2 (Power=2)\nOfficial Duties upon Officer Change\n\n Whenever the holder of an Office changes, any duties which the\n Rules had imposed upon the prior holder of that Office as a\n consequence of holding that Office which have not been fulfilled\n must instead be fulfilled by the new holder of that Office, as\n soon as possible after the change of Officer occurs.\n\n The former holder of the Office is absolved of performing all\n such duties, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nCFJ 1061 (Judged TRUE, Nov. 2 1997): \"Rule 1585 should be interpreted\n such that a Player who is newly installed into an Office does not\n commit the Infraction of Failure to Report (insofar as that Office is\n subject to such duties) if e posts the required Report within a week\n of eir being installed into Office.\"\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2480, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2617, Jun. 1 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4135 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001'),(404449,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1553,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Officer Transition','Officer Transition',990206480,'Rule 1553/2 (Power=1)\nOfficer Transition\n\n Whenever a Player ceases to hold an Office, that Player shall\n make a reasonable effort to ensure that all materials necessary\n for the conduct of that Office, including any records the holder\n of that Office is required to maintain, are made available to\n the next Player to hold that Office. A Player who fails to do\n so violates this Rule, and commits the Class 4 Crime of Improper\n Officer Transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2429 (favor), Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404450,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1728,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4123 (Lindrum), Mar. 21 2001','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',990206480,'Rule 1728/10 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is Dependent (or may be performed Dependently) if\n and only if it is an Action With N Objections or an Action\n With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer not greater\n than five. The phrase `Without Objection\' is synonymous with\n `Without 1 Objection\', and the phrase `With Support\' is\n synonymous with `With 1 Supporter\'. The Rules may name\n specific actions as Dependent Actions.\n\n A Player may, in a Public Forum, unambiguously describe a\n particular Dependent Action which e is authorised by the\n Rules to perform Dependently, and announce eir intent to\n perform it. That Player may perform that action if and only if:\n\n (a) e announced eir intent at most fourteen days before\n attempting to perform it, and, in the case of Actions\n Without N Objections, at least four days before attempting\n to perform it;\n\n (b) the authorising Rule explicitly indicates who may perform\n the action Dependently;\n\n (c) during the time between the announcement made under\n (a) of this Rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) fewer than N Players have publicly posted Objections\n to the performance of the action, with reasons, if the\n action is to be performed Without N Objections; or\n\n (2) at least N Players other than the Player attempting to\n make the action have publicly posted Support for\n the performance of the action, if the action is to be\n performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (d) e publicly announces that e performs the described action.\n\n Properties which would be changed by a Dependent Action\n do not occur until announced as in (d).\n\n The specification in the Rules that an action may be\n performed Dependently in no way prohibits performing that\n same action if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n Rules calling for Dependent Actions may restrict the eligibility\n of Players to Support or Object to that specific Action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4123 (Lindrum), Mar. 21 2001'),(404451,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1664,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001','Rebellion','Rebellion',990206480,'Rule 1664/18 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall pay out 40 Stems to each Rebellious\n player\n - All positions in the Oligarchy become vacant.\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - The Registrar shall levy a 75% Indulgence tax. For this\n levy, the Bearor of the Patent Title \"Robespierre\" is\n tax-exempt.\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the\n Political Status and Indulgence holdings of players at the time\n of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001'),(404452,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1840,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4096 (Elysion), Jan. 15 2001','Political Status','Political Status',990206480,'Rule 1840/3 (Power=2)\nPolitical Status\n\n Each player\'s Political Status is either Abiding or Rebellious;\n the Registrar shall include a list of Rebellious players in the\n Registrar\'s Report. A player can change eir Political Status by\n publicly announcing e does so, provided e has not changed eir\n Political Status during the current month. A new players is\n always Abiding when e becomes a player.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Rebellious Player commits\n the Class 2 Infraction of Inciting to Riot (to be reported by\n the Registrar), unless all of the following are true at that\n time:\n\n i) The Registrar has not announced whether the last Call for\n Revolt succeeded or failed.\n ii) The Player was Rebellious at the time of the last Call for\n Revolt.\n iii) The Player has not changed from Abiding to Rebellious since\n the last Call for Revolt.\n\n in which case the Player is Hauled Into Kangaroo Court instead.\n\n When a Call for Revolt fails, each Player Hauled Into Kangaroo\n Court since the Call for Revolt commits the Infraction of\n Inciting to Riot, as defined above.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3737 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4096 (Elysion), Jan. 15 2001'),(404453,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1955,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1955/3 (Power=1)\nThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n\n There is an Office of Grand Warden of the Oligarchy, whose\n responsibility it is to conduct Auctions for positions in\n the Oligarchy.\n\n The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\'s Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all positions in the Oligarchy with their\n ranks, and the Players who hold those positions; and\n\n (b) the date on which the current High Oligarch, if there is\n one, became the High Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404454,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1975,'Created by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','The Assistant Director of Personnel','The Assistant Director of Personnel',990206480,'Rule 1975/0 (Power=1)\nThe Assistant Director of Personnel\n\n There is an Office of Assistant Director of Personnel, whose\n responsibility it is to hold Elections for Officers.\n\n The Assistant Director of Personnel\'s Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all Offices;\n\n (b) for each Office, the Electee to the Office and the\n earliest date such that e was the Electee to the Office\n on that date, and no other Player has been the Electee to\n the Office since that date;\n\n (c) for each Office where the current holder of the Office is\n not the Electee, the current holder of the Office, and\n the date on which e became the holder of the Office;\n\n (d) for each Office, the date on which the Term of Service\n for the Office expires (or an indication that the Office\n is held in perpetuity); and\n\n (e) the identity of the Speaker and the date of the next\n Quarterly Speaker Transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404455,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1892,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','The Treasuror','The Treasuror',990206480,'Rule 1892/5 (Power=1)\nThe Treasuror\n\n There exists the Office of Treasuror, whose responsibility it is\n to record various information regarding Budgets, Currencies and\n Properties, and to maintain the Treasuror\'s Budget.\n\n The Treasuror\'s Monthly Report shall include, for each\n Currency:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Mintor;\n (iii) its Recordkeepor; and\n (iv) its MUQ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3888 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3935 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404456,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1893,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','The Treasuror\'s Budget','The Treasuror\'s Budget',990206480,'Rule 1893/11 (Power=1)\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall contain the Basic Officer Salary\n (BOS), an amount between 0 and 200 Stems inclusive.\n Additionally, the Budget shall contain the values all of the\n following compensations:\n\n (i) the Minimum Income;\n (ii) the Judicial Salary;\n (iii) the Winner\'s Stipend;\n (iv) the Distributor\'s Gratuity;\n (v) the Speaker\'s Gratuity; and\n (vi) for each wage-earning Office, the Salary of that Office.\n\n A compensation shall be not less than 0 nor more than 4, and\n must be an integral multiple of 0.1. The arithmetic mean of all\n compensations shall be no greater than 2.\n\n Whenever the Rules indicate that one of the above compensations\n is to be paid out, the amount to be paid out shall be the\n product of the value of the compensation and the value of the\n BOS (as set in the latest Budget).\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain a schedule that, for\n each Bank Currency, shall indicate the amount of the New Player\n Award for that Currency. The amount of the New Player Award for\n a Bank Currency shall not be less than the Minimum Unit Quantity\n of that Currency.\n\n While holding the Office as Electee, the Treasuror may amend eir\n Budget, With Support.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3924 (Wes), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3944 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3955 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3982 (Sherlock), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3996 (lee), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404457,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1940,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',990206480,'Rule 1940/2 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic\n compensations. As soon as possible after the beginning of each\n month, each periodic compensation required to be paid out shall\n be paid out by the Officer required to do so.\n\n The Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s\n Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are periodic\n compensations.\n\n The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to each\n Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the designated\n Salary for each Office that Player held for at least 12 days of\n the previous month.\n\n The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity to\n the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was both the\n Distributor and a Player for at least 12 days of the previous\n month.\n\n The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a Player\n if that Player was Speaker for the whole of the previous month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001'),(404458,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1932,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001','The Oligarchy','The Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1932/3 (Power=2)\nThe Oligarchy\n\n The Oligarchy is a set of six positions which are filled by\n Players, who are called Oligarchs. No Player may ever occupy\n more than one position in the Oligarchy at any one time. A\n position is vacant if and only if it is not occupied; hence\n there is a vacancy in the Oligarchy only when there are fewer\n than six Oligarchs.\n\n There are three ranks within the Oligarchy, termed High, Middle,\n and Low. There are at most one High Oligarch and at most two\n Middle Oligarchs. There may be as many as six Low Oligarchs, but\n the normal number is three.\n\n An Oligarch may resign eir position in the Oligarchy by\n publicly announcing e does so. Upon such an announcement, e\n ceases to be an Oligarch and eir position becomes vacant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001'),(404459,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1963,'Created by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001','Vacancies in the Oligarchy','Vacancies in the Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1963/0 (Power=2)\nVacancies in the Oligarchy\n\n If an Oligarch is On Hold, is a Zombie, has three or more Blots,\n is the Speaker, or is rotated out of the Oligarchy, then the\n Grand Warden of the Oligarchy is required to remove that Player\n from the Oligarchy as soon as possible.\n\n The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by correctly\n announcing that at least one of the above conditions has arisen\n for that Player. The named Player ceases to be an Oligarch as of\n the GWoTO\'s announcement, and eir position in the Oligarchy\n becomes vacant.\n\n An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player also ceases to be an\n Oligarch, and eir position in the Oligarchy becomes vacant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001'),(404460,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1964,'Created by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001','Filling Vacancies in the Oligarchy','Filling Vacancies in the Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1964/0 (Power=1)\nFilling Vacancies in the Oligarchy\n\n Whenever there exist Oligarchy positions which are neither\n occupied nor pending, and no Oligarchy Auction is in progress,\n the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWoTO) shall initiate an\n Auction for a number of positions equal to the number of\n positions neither occupied nor pending. At most one Auction of\n Oligarchy positions shall be conducted at a time; if the number\n of vacant positions increases during an Auction, the GWoTO shall\n not initiate a new Auction until the current Auction ends.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001'),(404461,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1936,'Amended(6) by Proposal 535 (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1936/6 (Power=2)\nAuctioning Positions in the Oligarchy\n\n Whenever an Auction is conducted to fill a position or positions\n in the Oligarchy, the standard Auction procedure is used, with\n the following additions and exceptions:\n\n (a) Auction Currency: the Auction Currency is Stems.\n\n (b) Bidders: Only Politicians may bid. The Speaker, the\n Speaker-Elect, all Zombies, and all Oligarchs may not bid.\n\n (c) If a bidder ceases to be a Player, goes On Hold, or becomes\n a Zombie, an Oligarch, the Speaker or the Speaker-Elect\n during the Auction, then all eir bids in the Auction are\n cancelled.\n\n (d) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids are\n the N largest uncancelled bids made by different Players\n who are not Oligarchs, where N is the number of positions\n being Auctioned.\n\n (e) Defaulting: a winning bidder has one week from the time e\n is billed by the Auctioneer for eir winning bid in which to\n pay the bill. If the bill remains unpaid for more than one\n week, then the winning bidder is considered to have\n defaulted. In that case, the Auctioneer shall forgive the\n debt and penalise the defaulting bidder 2 Blots.\n\n A position in the Oligarchy is pending if the position is\n vacant, an Auction has been held for that position and a winning\n bidder determined, and the winning bidder has not defaulted.\n\n When a winning bidder pays the bill for eir winning bid in the\n Auction, e becomes a Low Oligarch, provided the position is\n pending.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4073 (Elysion), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001'),(404462,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1937,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001','Distributing Positions in the Oligarchy','Distributing Positions in the Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1937/6 (Power=2)\nDistributing Positions in the Oligarchy\n\n When there are six Oligarchs and a number of Low Oligarchs other\n than three, the Oligarchy is \"abnormally distributed\", and an\n Oligarchy selection takes place as set out below.\n\n After a Player has become an Oligarch, or an Oligarch has\n changed rank, then if the Oligarchy is abnormally distributed,\n the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall, within three days,\n publish a list of the Oligarchs and their ranks, identifying\n those Players who are required to make the selection, and the\n set of Players from whom the selection is to be made. Failure to\n do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Oligardiness, which may be\n reported by any Player. However, if the Oligarchy selection\n occurs before the GWoTO publishes the list, the GWoTO is\n relieved of eir obligation to publish it.\n\n Whenever there are six Oligarchs, and no High Oligarch, the Low\n Oligarchs are permitted to select a Middle Oligarch to become\n the new High Oligarch. If there are no Middle Oligarchs, the Low\n Oligarchs shall instead select one of their own number to become\n the new High Oligarch. The immediately prior High Oligarch may\n not be selected as the new High Oligarch, if e is presently a\n Low Oligarch.\n\n Whenever there are six Oligarchs, a High Oligarch, and fewer\n than two Middle Oligarchs, the High Oligarch is permitted to\n select a Low Oligarch to become Middle Oligarch.\n\n When a selection from a set of one candidate is to be made, that\n candidate is selected immediately without any action by any\n Player.\n\n When a selection from a set of two or more candidates is to be\n made, and that selection is not to be made by the Speaker, the\n individual or individuals who are to make the selection shall\n announce their recommendations in the Public Forum. They are\n permitted to make their recommendations from the time the\n Oligarchy becomes abnormally distributed. They are required to\n make their recommendations within three days of the GWoTO\'s\n announcement. Recommendations, once made, cannot be changed.\n\n The selection occurs when one candidate has received the\n recommendation of a majority of those persons required to make a\n recommendation. If three days pass from the GWoTO\'s announcement\n without one candidate receiving the recommendation of a\n majority, then if there is a candidate which has received more\n recommendations than any other candidate, that candidate is\n selected; otherwise, the decision passes to the Speaker, and the\n Speaker shall make the selection.\n\n When a selection from a set of two or more candidates is to be\n made, and that selection is required to be made by the Speaker,\n the Speaker shall make eir selection within seven days by\n announcing it in the Public Forum. A Speaker who fails to make\n such a selection becomes Tainted. If, at the time a Player\n becomes Speaker, the previous Speaker was required to make a\n selection by this Rule and had not yet done so, the new Speaker\n shall be instead required to make the selection, and shall do so\n within seven days of becoming Speaker, or become Tainted.\n\n If a vacancy in the Oligarchy arises when the Oligarchy is\n abnormally distributed, then the Oligarchy selection and all\n requirements on Players arising from it are cancelled.\n\n Any Player required to make a recommendation by this Rule who\n fails to do so within the allotted time commits the Class 2\n Infraction of Oligardiness; this Infraction may be reported by\n any Player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4073c (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001'),(404463,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1938,'Amended(1) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001','Rotation Out of the Oligarchy','Rotation Out of the Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1938/2 (Power=2)\nRotation Out of the Oligarchy\n\n If the same Player has been High Oligarch continuously for at\n least four weeks, and there have been no vacancies in the\n Oligarchy during the past Nomic Week, then at the beginning of\n the next Nomic Week, the High Oligarch is rotated out of the\n Oligarchy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001'),(404464,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1483,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Definition of Proposals','Definition of Proposals',990206480,'Rule 1483/9 (Power=1)\nDefinition of Proposals\n\n A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute\n publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is\n intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a\n Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the\n Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or\n submitting a Proposal.\n\n The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was\n Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a\n new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit\n indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.\n\n The publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new\n Proposals.\n\n All Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more\n than 5 Blots.\n\n[CFJ 762: Anything contained in a Proposal is part of that Proposal,\n unless the Rules or Game Custom specifically says otherwise.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1619, Jul. 17 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3799 (Blob), Oct. 29 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404465,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1698,'Created by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997','The Proposal System Is Protected','The Proposal System Is Protected',990206480,'Rule 1698/0 (Power=3)\nThe Proposal System Is Protected\n\n It must always be possible to adopt Proposals within a 4 week\n period. Any change to the game state which would result in\n this condition becoming false is cancelled and does not take\n place, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997'),(404466,'rcs','00000001.00000001',105,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial','What Is a Rule Change?','What Is a Rule Change?',990206480,'Rule 105/1 (Power=3)\nWhat Is a Rule Change?\n\n A Rule Change is any of the following:\n\n * The enactment of a new Rule;\n * The repeal of an existing Rule;\n * The amendment of the text of an existing Rule; or\n * Any change to a substantive property of a Rule other than\n its text.\n\n A \"substantive property of a Rule\" is any property of that\n Rule (other than its text) which determines in part or in full\n the ability of that Rule to govern by itself or in conjunction\n with other Rules.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial'),(404467,'rcs','00000001.00000001',115,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1392, Jan. 24 1995','Self-Referential Rules Allowed','Self-Referential Rules Allowed',990206480,'Rule 115/0 (Power=3)\nSelf-Referential Rules Allowed\n\n Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply\n Rule Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even\n Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are\n permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible\n solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a\n Rule.\n\n[CFJ 700: Self-amending and self-repealing Rules are allowed.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 115, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1392, Jan. 24 1995'),(404468,'rcs','00000001.00000001',107,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999','Rule Changes Must Be Written Down','Rule Changes Must Be Written Down',990206480,'Rule 107/1 (Power=3)\nRule Changes Must Be Written Down\n\n Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise\n communicated in valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted,\n it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. For\n the purposes of this rule, print and electronic media, including\n mailing lists, are valid media.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999'),(404469,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1339,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial','Precision in Rule Changes','Precision in Rule Changes',990206480,'Rule 1339/6 (Power=3)\nPrecision in Rule Changes\n\n Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule\n Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a\n Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect.\n\n Variations in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of\n text in an existing Rule to be removed or replaced does not\n create an irregularity or ambiguity, for the purpose of this\n Rule. Any other variation, however, does.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1339, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1414, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1440, Feb. 21 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 1532, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2671, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial'),(404470,'rcs','00000001.00000001',594,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001','Proposals and Rule Changes','Proposals and Rule Changes',990206480,'Rule 594/3 (Power=2)\nProposals and Rule Changes\n\n When a Proposal is adopted, its Power becomes equal to its\n Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the\n Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the\n Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable\n are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision,\n each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n[CFJ 778: It is legal for a Proposal to contain zero Rule Changes.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 594 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26 1997, substantial\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001'),(404471,'rcs','00000001.00000001',404,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2832 (Steve), Mar. 11 1997, substantial','Legality of Proposals','Legality of Proposals',990206480,'Rule 404/2 (Power=2)\nLegality of Proposals\n\n No Rule shall have any effect which seeks to make the legality\n of making a Proposal conditional upon its content.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 404 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2664, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2689, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2832 (Steve), Mar. 11 1997, substantial'),(404472,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1623,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000','Disinterested Proposals','Disinterested Proposals',990206480,'Rule 1623/11 (Power=1)\nDisinterested Proposals\n\n A Proposal may be Interested or Disinterested. Each Proposal is\n Interested when made. The Proposer of a Proposal may cause it to\n become Disinterested, without objection, but only if the\n Proposal has not yet been distributed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2581, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2597, May 11 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2636, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2738 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2815 (Zefram), Feb. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3537 (Steve), Jul. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000'),(404473,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1724,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000','Urgent Proposals','Urgent Proposals',990206480,'Rule 1724/7 (Power=1)\nUrgent Proposals\n\n A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met:\n\n i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted\n explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal,\n\n ii) The Proposal is Interested.\n\n An Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.\n\n The Promotor may distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it\n becomes Distributable, and e is required to do so within five\n days. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Lack of\n Urgency, which may be detected and reported by any Player.\n\n The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the\n time the Proposal is distributed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3508 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3922 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3945 (Peekee), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000'),(404474,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1953,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4145 (Ian), Apr. 22 2001','Sane Proposals','Sane Proposals',990206480,'Rule 1953/2 (Power=2)\nSane Proposals\n\n A Proposal is Sane if all the following conditions are met:\n\n i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted\n explicitly states that it is a Sane Proposal, or it has\n been declared a Sane Proposal by other methods explicitly\n stated in the Rules,\n\n ii) The Proposal is Interested.\n\n iii) The Proposal is Democratic.\n\n A Sane Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.\n\n On Sane Proposals, each Player has a Voting Power of one, unless\n e has five or more Blots, in which case eir Voting Power is\n zero; all other entities have a Voting Power of zero on Sane\n Proposals.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which determine the\n Voting Power of entities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4139 (Ziggy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4145 (Ian), Apr. 22 2001'),(404475,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1607,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','The Promotor','The Promotor',990206480,'Rule 1607/9 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n There exists the Office of Promotor, whose responsibility it is\n to receive and distribute Proposals, and to be the Recordkeepor\n for Papyri.\n\n The Promotor\'s Report shall include a list of the titles and\n submission dates of all Proposals in the Proposal Pool.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404476,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1951,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','Papyri','Papyri',990206480,'Rule 1951/1 (Power=1)\nPapyri\n\n Papyri (singular Papyrus) are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of\n Papyri is 0.1. The Recordkeepor for Papyri is the Promotor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404477,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1954,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','Distribution of Papyri','Distribution of Papyri',990206480,'Rule 1954/2 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Papyri\n\n As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the\n Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must\n always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may\n auction as many Papyri as e wishes.\n\n The items to be auctioned are individual Papyri, and thus\n the number of items is equal to the number of Papyri to be\n Auctioned. The Auctioneer shall be the Promotor, and the Auction\n shall be conducted in Stems. Only Scribes may bid.\n\n Upon the satisfaction of a debt arising from a Papyrus Auction,\n the Promotor shall pay out one Papyrus to the debtor of the\n satisfied debt.\n\n The Promotor may, within a week after the end of a Papyrus\n Auction, pay out to emself a number of Stems equal to the\n Winning Bid of the Auction, if there were at least three\n different winners in the Auction, not counting the Promotor\n emself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4056 (t), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404478,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1036,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000','The Proposal Pool','The Proposal Pool',990206480,'Rule 1036/14 (Power=1)\nThe Proposal Pool\n\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool.\n\n A Proposal\'s Distribution Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ\n of Papyri. The base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but\n this may be altered by other Rules.\n\n[CFJ 10: A Proposal remains a Proposal even if the Promotor changes\n before the Proposal is distributed.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 204, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 415 (KoJen), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1036, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1546, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2056, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3706 (Harlequin), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3841 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3945 (Peekee), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000'),(404479,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1952,'Created by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',990206480,'Rule 1952/0 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n Each Proposal is either Distributable or Undistributable.\n Initially, each Proposal is Undistributable. When a Proposal\n becomes Disinterested, it immediately becomes Distributable\n and may not become Undistributable by any means as long as\n it remains Disinterested.\n\n Any Player may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal\n Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and\n Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri equal to the amount of the\n Distribution Cost of the Proposal. Any Player may make any\n Interested Distributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool\n Undistributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and\n Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri double the amount of the\n Distribution Cost of the Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000'),(404480,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1770,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000','Distributing Proposals','Distributing Proposals',990206480,'Rule 1770/14 (Power=1)\nDistributing Proposals\n\n During each Week, the Promotor must either distribute every\n Proposal that was Distributable at the beginning of that Week,\n or announce that there were no such Proposals. Failure to do so\n is the Class 1 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness, which any\n Player may detect and report.\n\n The distribution of each Proposal shall be accompanied by the\n identity of its Proposing Entity, and an indication of whether\n the Proposal is Ordinary or Democratic. However, the failure of\n the Promotor to distribute any of these accompaniments with a\n Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of\n any legal effect.\n\n A Proposal is legally distributed only if it is explicitly\n marked as such. When a Proposal is distributed, it is removed\n from the Proposal Pool.\n\n The Promotor shall not distribute any Proposal which is not\n Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed. If\n the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was Distributable\n at the time it was distributed, e commits the Class 2 Crime of\n Illegal Abortion.\n\n The Promotor aborts a Proposal by publishing an announcement to\n that effect, clearly identifying the Proposal which has been\n aborted. When a Proposal is aborted:\n\n (a) the Voting Period for that Proposal immediately ends, if it\n has not ended already;\n (b) all Votes cast on that Proposal are cancelled, and the\n Proposal fails;\n (c) the Assessor is relieved of any duty to report on Votes\n cast on that Proposal; and\n (d) the Proposal is added to the Proposal Pool.\n\n The distribution of an Undistributable Proposal, when the\n Promotor knows that the Proposal is Undistributable, is the\n Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. The distribution of\n a text purporting to be a Proposal, when the Promotor knows that\n the text is not a Proposal, is the Class 5 Crime of Promotor\n Fraud.\n\n[In upholding the Judgement of CFJ 1089, the Board of Appeals held\n that in order for a Proposal to have been legally distributed, it is\n necessary (although perhaps not sufficient) that some text with\n demonstrably the same effects as the Proposal have been distributed.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3731 (Steve), Apr. 24 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3841 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3842 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3922 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4005 (Taral), May 8 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4034 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000'),(404481,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1774,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000','Discarding Proposals from the Pool','Discarding Proposals from the Pool',990206480,'Rule 1774/3 (Power=1)\nDiscarding Proposals from the Pool\n\n If, at any time, there is an Undistributable Proposal\n in the Proposal Pool which has been in the Pool for more than\n two weeks, the Promotor may, at eir discretion, remove this\n Proposal from the Pool, and discard it.\n\n Also, the Proposer of a Proposal in the Pool may remove that\n Proposal from the Pool, by notifying the Promotor that e\n does so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3806 (Kolja A.), Nov. 30 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3943 (Wes), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000'),(404482,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1003,'Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2665, Sep. 12 1996','No Coercive Proposals','No Coercive Proposals',990206480,'Rule 1003/2 (Power=2)\nNo Coercive Proposals\n\n Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player\n into voting against eir conscience shall not take effect even if\n adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n[CFJ 756: This includes only those Proposals which penalize people\n based on their votes, even though the penalizing is indirect.\n However, it is only coercive if the threat is large enough to be\n effective.\n CFJ 876: The offering of a modest bribe does not constitute coercion\n to vote against conscience.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 822, ca. Feb. 18 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1003, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 4 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1623, Jul. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2665, Sep. 12 1996'),(404483,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1449,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999','The Assessor','The Assessor',990206480,'Rule 1449/11 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n There exists the Office of Assessor, whose responsibility it is\n to receive and announce the results of Votes on Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999'),(404484,'rcs','00000001.00000001',106,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',990206480,'Rule 106/1 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n All Proposals made and distributed in the proper way shall\n be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if\n it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is\n achieved.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998'),(404485,'rcs','00000001.00000001',693,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000','Prescribed Voting Period','Prescribed Voting Period',990206480,'Rule 693/6 (Power=2)\nPrescribed Voting Period\n\n The Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days, beginning when\n the Proposal is distributed. Other Rules may specify other\n lengths of Voting Periods for particular classes of Proposals.\n\n[CFJ 1110 (Judged Dec. 11 1998; Appeal completed Dec. 22 1998) &\n CFJ 1111 (Judged Dec. 22 1998): When the voting period of a proposal\n whose voting period is in progress is changed via amendment of this\n Rule, an attempted vote is effective if (in addition to satsifying\n any other requirements imposed by the Rules) it was made after the\n start of the voting period and prior to its end, those times being\n determined by the text of this Rule at the time the vote is\n attempted.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000'),(404486,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1726,'Created by Proposal 3512 (Zefram), Jun. 16 1997','The Guillotine','The Guillotine',990206480,'Rule 1726/0 (Power=1)\nThe Guillotine\n\n There is a type of Application known as a Guillotine\n Application. Such an Application is Executed by submitting it\n to the Assessor. A Guillotine Application may specify when it\n is to take effect; if it does not do so, or specifies a time\n prior to its Execution, it takes effect when Executed. For a\n Guillotine Application to take effect:\n\n * it must state that it is a Guillotine Application;\n\n * it must clearly identify exactly one Proposal to which it\n applies;\n\n * that Proposal\'s Voting Period must be in progress;\n\n * the ratio of the number of Active Senators whose signatures it\n bears to the number of Active Senators whose signatures it\n does not bear must exceed the Adoption Index of the Proposal;\n and\n\n * it must bear the signatures of at least two Senators.\n\n When a Guillotine Application takes effect, the Voting Period\n of the Proposal to which it applies immediately ends. This Rule\n takes precedence over all other Rules governing the Voting\n Period of Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3512 (Zefram), Jun. 16 1997'),(404487,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1933,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001','Ordinary and Democratic Proposals','Ordinary and Democratic Proposals',990206480,'Rule 1933/3 (Power=2)\nOrdinary and Democratic Proposals\n\n Every Proposal is either Ordinary or Democratic. A Proposal is\n Ordinary unless\n (a) the Proposal has an Adoption Index of two (2) or greater;\n (b) the Proposal is made Democratic as specified by an\n instrument with Power greater than or equal to two (2).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001'),(404488,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1934,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4145 (Ian), Apr. 22 2001','The Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy','The Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy',990206480,'Rule 1934/3 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy\n\n An Untainted Speaker may declare an Interested Proposal, which\n would otherwise be an Ordinary Proposal, for which the Voting\n Period has not yet concluded, and which has never been\n Contested, a Sane Proposal, With 3 Supporters. This declaration\n may occur before the Voting Period commences; if it does, then\n this supported declaration turns the Proposal into a Democratic\n Proposal, and makes it Sane, requiring its Distribution Cost to\n be modified as required by other Rules. If this supported\n declaration occurs during the Voting Period for the Proposal,\n then the Proposal is not modified unless at least one Papyrus is\n transferred to the Bank for this stated purpose by any Player.\n If this transfer occurs, then the Proposal becomes Democratic\n and Sane, all Votes already cast on the Proposal prior to the\n change are cancelled and its Voting Period is extended to end\n seven days after it became a Sane Proposal.\n\n Any Player may Contest an Interested Proposal, which would\n otherwise be an Ordinary Proposal and for which the Voting\n Period has not yet concluded, by sending a message to the Public\n Forum stating e is doing so. If this Player is an Untainted\n Speaker, then the Proposal becomes Contested when e receives\n three Supporters. If this Player is not an Untainted Speaker,\n then the Proposal becomes Contested if and only if e receives\n three Supporters and e publicly transfers 0.1VE to the Bank for\n the Contest.\n\n If a Proposal is Contested, any Player may publicly transfer any\n number of VEs to the Bank with a clear. unambiguous statement\n that this transfer is made either for or against the Contest.\n At the end of the Voting Period, the Contest is Succesful if\n strictly more VEs have been publicly transferred to the Bank for\n the Contest than have been publicly transferred to the Bank\n against the Contest. If equal numbers of VEs have been publicly\n transferred to the Bank both for and against the Contest, then\n the Contest is Succesful only if the Proposal was Contested by\n an Untainted Speaker.\n\n If the Contest is not Succesful, the Voting Period is considered\n to have ended, and the Proposal is considered an ordinary\n Ordinary Proposal for any further actions.\n\n If the Contest is Succesful, then all Votes cast on the Proposal\n are cancelled. The Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal. The\n Voting Period is considered not to have ended, and is extended a\n further seven days.\n\n The Assessor shall be required to determine whether or not the\n Contest is Succesful, and shall report any results of this\n determination as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 26 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4049 (Elysion), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4145 (Ian), Apr. 22 2001'),(404489,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1950,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','Voting Power','Voting Power',990206480,'Rule 1950/1 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n An Entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as follows:\n\n (a) The High Oligarch: three;\n (b) A Middle Oligarch: two;\n (c) A Low Oligarch: one;\n (d) Any other entity: zero.\n\n An Entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:\n\n (a) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements\n e possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots\n e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of:\n (1) for the High Oligarch, one;\n (2) for a Middle Oligarch, two;\n (3) for a Low Oligarch, three;\n (4) for a non-Oligarch, five.\n (b) The Bank: zero;\n (c) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a default\n of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting power on a\n Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n At the beginning of a week, the Assessor shall determine each\n entity\'s Voting Power on Democratic and Ordinary Proposals.\n These values shall then be in effect for all Proposals of the\n proper type distributed during that week. However, if a Proposal\n is made Democratic after it has been distributed, the Voting\n Power of each entity for that Proposal is redetermined at the\n time the Proposal is made Democratic.\n\n An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, up\n to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on\n that Proposal, with the exception that no Player may vote on an\n Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts\n eir vote. An entity may cast its votes in any combination e\n wishes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404490,'rcs','00000001.00000001',683,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000','Voting on Proposals','Voting on Proposals',990206480,'Rule 683/9 (Power=1)\nVoting on Proposals\n\n A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do\n so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is\n casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or\n cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be\n cancelled as other Rules require.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\n A vote cast by an entity which does not have an Executor\n is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000'),(404491,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1715,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000','Announcing One\'s Presence','Announcing One\'s Presence',990206480,'Rule 1715/6 (Power=1)\nAnnouncing One\'s Presence\n\n A Player may declare that e is PRESENT on an Issue which is not\n an Ordinary Proposal by sending a message to that effect to the\n Issue\'s Vote Collector. Solely for the purpose of determining\n Quorum, this Player is considered to have voted on that Issue.\n If e also casts a Vote on that Issue, e is counted only once\n toward Quorum.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3481 (General Chaos), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3519 (Steve), Jun. 23 1997\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3596 (Kolja A.), Nov. 14 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3756 (Steve), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(4) by Rule 1715, Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3946 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000'),(404492,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1764,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','Modes of Voting','Modes of Voting',990206480,'Rule 1764/12 (Power=1)\nModes of Voting\n\n There are three classes of Issues: Proposals, Elections, and\n Referenda.\n\n (a) There are three possible modes of voting on Issues: Public,\n Private and Unrestricted. If not otherwise defined, the\n prevailing mode for each class of Issue is Public.\n\n (b) (1) The Assessor may change the prevailing mode of voting\n for Proposals, with Support.\n\n (2) The Assistant Director of Personnel may change the\n prevailing mode of voting for Elections, with Support.\n\n (3) The prevailing mode of Referenda is always Public.\n\n (c) When the Voting Period on an Issue begins, the mode of\n voting for that particular Issue is permanently set to the\n prevailing mode for that class of Issue.\n\n (d) (1) If the mode of voting is Public, then any other Rule to\n the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes,\n or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that\n Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message to the\n Public Forum.\n\n (2) If the mode of voting is Private, then any other Rule\n to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any\n votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters\n on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a\n message privately to the Vote Collector.\n\n (3) If the mode of voting is Unrestricted, then any other\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of\n any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters\n on that Issue, may be achieved by sending a message\n either publicly or privately.\n\n (e) If the mode of voting is Private or Unrestricted, then the\n status of any votes cast privately is secret until the\n end of the voting period.\n\n[CFJ 1124, Judged TRUE Apr. 26 1999: \"Votes sent to the\n agora-discussion mailing list are neither \'sent publically\' nor \'sent\n privately\', and so are not valid when voting is Unrestricted.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3658 (Steve), Jan. 8 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3757 (Steve), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Rule 1764, Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3780 (Steve), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(4) by Rule 1764, Oct. 12 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3834 (Blob), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3952 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404493,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1729,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4138 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','Insanity','Insanity',990206480,'Rule 1729/3 (Power=1)\nInsanity\n\n An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule\n letter.\n (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not\n better.)\n\n For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended:\n there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been\n bended.\n Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor.\n The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and\n professor.\n\n And should such a Proposal\'s Voting Period begin,\n but no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win.\n\nCFJ 1178, Judged TRUE Nov. 18 1999: \"Rule 1729 permits voting on\nInsane Proposals by private message to the Assessor, even when the\nprevailing mode of voting on Proposals is Public.\"\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3527 (Oerjan), Jul. 8 1997 (unattributed)\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), Feb. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3880 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4138 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404494,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1717,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000','The Senate','The Senate',990206480,'Rule 1717/6 (Power=1)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding two months.\n\n At any time during the Voting Period of an Issue which is not an\n Ordinary Proposal, the Speaker may make it a Senate Vote, by\n publicly stating so. An Issue is not a Senate Vote otherwise.\n\n Only Senators can Vote on Senate Votes. When an Issue becomes a\n Senate Vote, all Votes cast on that Issue by non-Senators are\n cancelled.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3490 (Zefram), May 19 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3891 (Blob), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000'),(404495,'rcs','00000001.00000001',879,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Quorum','Quorum',990206480,'Rule 879/13 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three\n Oligarchs cast votes on it.\n\n A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if:\n (1) at least one-third of all Active Players, or\n (2) at least one-fifth of all Players\n cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be\n determined from the number of Players and number of Active\n Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at\n the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404496,'rcs','00000001.00000001',208,'Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995','End of the Voting Period','End of the Voting Period',990206480,'Rule 208/2 (Power=1)\nEnd of the Voting Period\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period on a\n given Proposal, the Assessor shall publish all the Votes cast\n upon that Proposal.\n\n[CFJ 707: A Player may not change eir Vote after the end of the Voting\n Period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995'),(404497,'rcs','00000001.00000001',955,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal',990206480,'Rule 955/5 (Power=3)\nVotes Required to Adopt a Proposal\n\n When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted\n by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting\n Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed,\n and at least one vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be\n Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, the Voting Index\n shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be\n the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes\n opposed.\n\n If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the\n Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at\n least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal\n is adopted. Otherwise, it fails.\n\n A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except\n as described in this Rule. A Proposal may not be adopted\n (synonymous with the Proposal passing) except as described\n in this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998'),(404498,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1965,'Created by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001','Complacent Oligarchy','Complacent Oligarchy',990206480,'Rule 1965/0 (Power=2)\nComplacent Oligarchy\n\n As soon as possible after an Ordinary Proposal fails quorum, the\n Assessor shall announce that it has done so. Upon such an\n announcement, the Proposal becomes Democratic, its Voting period\n is extended to end seven days after the announcement, and all\n Votes previously cast on it are cancelled.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001'),(404499,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1322,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial','Effectiveness of Rule Changes','Effectiveness of Rule Changes',990206480,'Rule 1322/3 (Power=3)\nEffectiveness of Rule Changes\n\n A given Rule Change shall not take effect unless the Power of\n the instrument which specified it is at least as great as the\n greater of the current Power of the Rule to be Changed (if any)\n and the Power the Rule would have after the Change (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1322, Nov. 21 1994\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 5 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nInfected, but not Amended, by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial'),(404500,'rcs','00000001.00000001',108,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3572 (Steve), Oct. 30 1997, substantial','When May Rule Changes Take Effect?','When May Rule Changes Take Effect?',990206480,'Rule 108/1 (Power=3)\nWhen May Rule Changes Take Effect?\n\n A given form of a Rule may not have effects earlier than\n the moment it came to have that form. The form of a Rule\n consists of its text and other substantive properties.\n\n No Rule Change may have retroactive application.\n\n[CFJ 1: This does not prevent Rules from being explicitly dependent on\n circumstances before they are enacted.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 108, Jun. 30 1993\n...\nAmended by Proposal 1276, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1074 to 108 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3572 (Steve), Oct. 30 1997, substantial'),(404501,'rcs','00000001.00000001',376,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000','When Proposals Take Effect','When Proposals Take Effect',990206480,'Rule 376/4 (Power=2)\nWhen Proposals Take Effect\n\n A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date-\n stamped on the first message sent by the Assessor to reach\n the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that\n Proposal.\n\n If the message sent by the Assessor announcing the results of\n the voting on a Proposal also contains the results of voting\n upon other Proposals, all such Proposals shall take effect at\n the same time, but in the order in which they were distributed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 376 (Ronald Kunne), ca. Aug. 16 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1271, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1490, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), Mar. 15 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000'),(404502,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1891,'Created by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999','Legislative Orders','Legislative Orders',990206480,'Rule 1891/0 (Power=1)\nLegislative Orders\n\n (a) A Proposal may contain one or more Orders.\n\n (b) The effect of adopting a Proposal which contains Orders is\n to execute those Orders. Such Orders are known as\n Legislative Orders, are deemed to have been executed by that\n Proposal, and are deemed to have been executed as of the\n date of the proclamation of the Proposal\'s adoption.\n\n (c) Legislative Orders may not be stayed, vacated, or amended\n except:\n (1) by a subsequent Legislative Order;\n (2) by a Judicial Order issued only after a judicial finding\n that the Proposal containing the Legislative Order was not\n adopted, was barred from taking effect, or was invalid; or\n (3) by the Clerk of the Courts, but only for the purpose of\n staying such an Order during the pendency of a dispute\n which might reasonably lead to a judicial finding of the\n sort mentioned in subdivision (c)(2) of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999'),(404503,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1561,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2627, Jul. 4 1996','Illegality of Bonus Clauses','Illegality of Bonus Clauses',990206480,'Rule 1561/1 (Power=2)\nIllegality of Bonus Clauses\n\n Any Proposal which offers a bribe to a Player or Players to\n vote either FOR or AGAINST a Proposal (either itself or another\n Proposal) shall be completely without effect, even if it is\n adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2449, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2627, Jul. 4 1996'),(404504,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1690,'Created by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26. 1997','Power of New Rules','Power of New Rules',990206480,'Rule 1690/0 (Power=1)\nPower of New Rules\n\n The Power of a new Rule shall be as specified by the instrument\n which causes the creation of that Rule; if no such specification\n exists, the Power of the new Rule shall be 1.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26. 1997'),(404505,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1349,'Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2663, Sep. 12 1996','Rule Numbering','Rule Numbering',990206480,'Rule 1349/0 (Power=2)\nRule Numbering\n\n The Rulekeepor shall give each newly-enacted Rule a Number for\n reference when it is created. The Number of a Rule shall be the\n least integer greater than all other Numbers previously given to\n a Rule (including numbers assigned to Rules later determined to\n have been incorrectly enacted), or 301, whichever is greater.\n\n Once a Rule has been given a Rule Number, it shall not be\n changed except as specified in the Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1349, Nov. 29 1994\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2663, Sep. 12 1996'),(404506,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1069,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1502, Mar. 24 1995','Amendment Numbers','Amendment Numbers',990206480,'Rule 1069/1 (Power=1)\nAmendment Numbers\n\n A Rule\'s Amendment Number is equal to the number of times a\n Rule having that Rule Number has been amended. The default\n Amendment Number is zero; this is the value of a Rule\'s\n Amendment Number when the Rule is Created, and it is the value\n of the Amendment Number of every Rule unless it is specified by\n the Rules to be otherwise.\n\n A Rule\'s Amendment Number shall be displayed in Official copies\n of the Ruleset, appended to the Rule Number, and separated by a\n forward slash. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to\n accurately update Amendment Numbers.\n\n Amendment Numbers may be used for Official purposes and in\n Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a\n Rule and the Rule\'s current text.\n\n[CFJ 738: If no Amendment Number is present in a communication, it\n is assumed to mean the current version of a Rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 750 (Waggie), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1069 (Steve), Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1502, Mar. 24 1995'),(404507,'rcs','00000001.00000001',947,'Amended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999','Bonus for Repeal','Bonus for Repeal',990206480,'Rule 947/15 (Power=1)\nBonus for Repeal\n\n If a Proposal is adopted which, as part of all of its effect,\n repeals one or more Rules, and immediately prior to the\n adoption of this Proposal there were more than 100 Rules, the\n Rulekeepor shall pay out 30 Stems to the Proposer of that\n Proposal, if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the Proposal\n simplifies the Ruleset. If the Rulekeepor decides that the\n Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, e must announce this\n decision.\n\n When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not\n simplify the Ruleset, the Executor of the Proposal\'s Proposer\n may reverse the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections,\n provided the procedure for doing so is initiated within one\n week of the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. When\n the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this manner, the\n Executor of the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 30 Stems\n to the Proposal\'s Proposer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 947, Jul. 3 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Oct. 2 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2047, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3471 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), Nov. 6 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3848 (Chuck), Mar. 26 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999'),(404508,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1678,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000','Encourage Proposals by New Players','Encourage Proposals by New Players',990206480,'Rule 1678/5 (Power=1)\nEncourage Proposals by New Players\n\n If an Interested Proposal passes, and that Proposal was\n submitted by a Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then\n the Assessor shall pay out to that Player an award of one\n Papyrus, over and above any other award that Player might also\n receive for that Proposal. This Rule takes precedence over Rules\n that would prevent this award.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2758 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000'),(404509,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1583,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999','Proposal Penalties Halved for New Players','Proposal Penalties Halved for New Players',990206480,'Rule 1583/2 (Power=1)\nProposal Penalties Halved for New Players\n\n All penalties that are a direct result of voting on Proposals\n are halved if the penalties are being applied to a Player during\n that Player\'s Grace Period.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to\n penalties that are a direct result of voting.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2477, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2755 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999'),(404510,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1434,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting',990206480,'Rule 1434/8 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Referendum Voting\n\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes and announcing the result.\n Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Vote\n Collector.\n\n * Voters: Only Active Players may Vote on a Referendum.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Vote.\n\n * Voting: A Voting Entity Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum e\n is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voting Entity\n may Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum is\n begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement must\n include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector may not give away any information about the Votes\n while the Voting is underway.\n\n This shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from publishing\n at any time a list of those Players who have already Voted.\n\n * Secrecy After Voting: Unless otherwise specified, the Vote\n Collector shall publish, after the Voting\n Period is over, the number of Votes of each kind as well as the\n name and Vote of each Entity which cast a Vote.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio, the ratio of FOR Votes on\n a Referendum relative to the AGAINST VOTES, must be greater than\n Adoption Index for the Referendum to pass. If it is not, the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: Unless otherwise specified, the Adoption Index\n for a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voters\n at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller fraction\n voted, the Referendum automatically fails.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of a Referendum\n is not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, it automatically fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: the full effects of a Referendum, as defined\n in Rules which make use of the Referendum procedure, come\n into force as of the moment the results are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1456, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2585, May 1 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2783 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmedned(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404511,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1445,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Defaults for Elections','Defaults for Elections',990206480,'Rule 1445/15 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections\n\n When an Election is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the following Standard Election Procedure shall be\n used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be\n modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for taking\n nominations, collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing\n the result. Unless otherwise specified, the Speaker at the\n time the Referendum starts shall be the Vote Collector.\n\n If the Vote Collector deregisters or is deregistered before the\n Voting Period ends, the Election has no Winner.\n\n * Nominator: Each Active Player may Nominate emself in an\n Election. On Hold status is measured at the time a Player\n makes or attempts to make a Nomination.\n\n * Nomination: A Nominator makes a Nomination by sending a\n message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period\n indicating for which Election e is Nominating.\n\n * Candidates: A Player who has Nominated for an Election is\n called a Candidate for that Election.\n\n * Retraction: A Nomination, once sent to the Vote Collector, may\n be retracted before the end of the Nominating Period. A player\n may retract a Nomination e has made by sending a message to the\n Vote Collector, indicating that e wishes to retract eir\n Nomination.\n\n * Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the\n time of the first correct and legal announcement that the\n Election has begun, as required by the Rules calling for the\n Election.\n\n * Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one\n Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside of\n the Nominating Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.\n\n * Announcing Candidates : the Vote Collector shall publicly\n announce, as soon as possible after the Nominating Period is\n over, the names of all Players who Nominated for the Election.\n\n If there are no Candidates in a given Election, then that\n Election shall have no Winner. If there is only one Candidate in\n a given Election, then that Candidate shall be the Winner of\n that Election.\n\n In all other cases, a Referendum shall being at the time\n Candidates are Announced, which shall be conducted using the\n standard procedure for Referendum Voting with the following\n exceptions :\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the\n same as the Vote Collector for the Election.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is the name of exactly one of the\n Candidates for the given Election. Words which are effectively\n synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Adoption: The Winner of the Election is the Candidate for whom\n the most votes were cast. If there is more than one such\n candidate, the Speaker chooses one of those candidates as the\n winner, and must publicly announce eir chosen candidate as\n winner.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum shall be set at 50% of the eligible Voting\n Entities at the beginning of the Voting Period. If a smaller\n fraction voted, the Election has no Winner.\n\n * Nonperformance by Vote Collector: The Vote Collector must\n perform eir required duties, but if the result of an Election is\n not announced within one Week following the end of the Voting\n Period, the Election has no Winner.\n\n * Effective Time of Election Results: The results of an Election\n are effective at the time the results of the Referendum are\n announced; or, if there is no Referendum, at the time that the\n Vote Collector announces that there is to be no Referendum.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: Any challenge of the correctness of the\n announced results of an Election must be made within seven days\n of the time the results are announced. If seven days pass from\n the time the results are announced without a challenge, the\n announced results are the true results of that Election, whether\n or not they be in error in any way.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1499 (Blob), Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2578, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2600, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2808 (Murphy), Feb. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3564 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3616 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3836 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4017 (Elysion), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4031 (Elysion), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404512,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1558,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','Defaults for Elections for Offices','Defaults for Elections for Offices',990206480,'Rule 1558/5 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections for Offices\n\n When the Rules require that an Election be conducted to fill\n an Office, that Election shall be conducted in accordance with\n the usual Rules for Elections, with the following exceptions:\n\n * The Vote Collector of the Election shall be the Assistant\n Director of Personnel, unless the Office which the Election is\n seeking to fill is that of the Assistant Director of\n Personnel, in which case the Vote Collector shall be the\n Speaker; and\n\n * No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted\n Nomination, would not be permitted to hold the Office which\n the Election is seeking to fill.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3628 (Murphy), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404513,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1957,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Budgets','Budgets',990206480,'Rule 1957/2 (Power=1)\nBudgets\n\n A Budget is a document maintained by a particular Office, whose\n holder is its Maintainer, and determining various values as\n explicitly required or permitted by the Rules.\n\n An Office has a Budget only if the Rules explicitly designate\n one. Each Budget shall be part of the Monthly Reports of its\n Maintainer. The Maintainer shall publish the Budget as soon as\n possible whenever it changes.\n\n If a current Budget is discovered to be invalid, then its\n Maintainer shall create a valid one as soon as possible. This\n valid one should be as close as possible to the most recent\n valid version of the Budget.\n\n While holding an Office as Electee, an Officer may amend its\n Budget Without Objection; the Rules regarding a particular\n Budget may specify a different procedure for its amendment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404514,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1958,'Created by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000','Nominating with Budgets','Nominating with Budgets',990206480,'Rule 1958/0 (Power=1)\nNominating with Budgets\n\n If an Office has a Budget, then each Nominee for the Office\n shall submit a valid Proto-Budget during the Nomination Period,\n or else eir Nomination shall automatically be withdrawn at the\n end of the Nomination Period. A Proto-Budget is valid if it\n would be valid as a Budget.\n\n When the Voting Period begins, the Vote Collector shall announce\n each Candidate\'s last valid Proto-Budget.\n\n When the Voting Period ends, the Winner\'s last valid\n Proto-Budget becomes the Budget of that Office, and e shall\n announce it as soon as possible. If the Election ends without a\n Winner, then the existing Budget remains in effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000'),(404515,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1835,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Standing Down','Standing Down',990206480,'Rule 1835/2 (Power=1)\nStanding Down\n\n During the Voting Period of an Election, any Candidate for that\n Election may stand down, by posting a public message to that\n effect. The player is then no longer to be considered a\n Candidate for that Election. Any further votes cast in eir\n favour are invalid, and e cannot win the Election.\n\n Any votes cast for a Player who stands down are cancelled, and\n any Player who cast such a vote is considered to have declared\n eir Presence in that Election. Additionally, any Player who\n cast such a vote may vote again, unless e has already cast\n another vote which remains uncancelled, and this Rule takes\n precedence over any Rule which would prevent such a vote.\n\n If, at any time during the Voting Period of an Election, there\n remains only a single Candidate, the Voting Period ends\n immediately, with the sole remaining Candidate as the winner\n of that Election.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3715 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4035 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404516,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1659,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','The Right to Call Elections','The Right to Call Elections',990206480,'Rule 1659/5 (Power=1)\nThe Right to Call Elections\n\n A Speaker who is not Tainted has the right to call Elections.\n This right is exercised by posting a public announcement that\n lists a number of Offices, and declares that the Speaker is\n exercising eir right to call Elections for these Offices. If\n the Speaker posts such a message, is not Tainted at the time of\n posting, and has not exercised this right since e last became\n Speaker, the Electee of each Office on the list (assuming that\n the Office has an Electee) is retired from Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2706, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 20 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404517,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1626,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Applications','Applications',990206480,'Rule 1626/3 (Power=1)\nApplications\n\n An Application is any body of text designated as such by a\n Player. This Player is known as its Sponsor.\n\n A Player\'s Signature is added to an Application when e sends a\n message to that Application\'s Sponsor indicating that e wishes\n to sign it.\n\n A Player\'s Signature is stricken from the Application when e\n sends a message to the Sponsor of the Application stating that e\n wishes eir signature stricken. Further, the Sponsor of an\n Application may strike any Signature from the Application at any\n time.\n\n If an Application is amended in any way (except to add or strike\n a Signature), any and all Signatures which appear on it are\n stricken from it.\n\n An Application is Executed when its Sponsor submits it to\n whatever Officer or other Player is designated by the Rules to\n receive Applications of that particular type, with whatever\n effect is defined by the Rules for the Execution of that type of\n Application. However, any other Rule notwithstanding, the\n Execution of an Application shall have no effect unless Executed\n within 14 days of the time the oldest Signature which appears on\n it was added.\n\n If a Player Executing an Application claims that the Application\n contains certain Signatures, but the purported Signatures have\n not been added to it in a manner consistent with this Rule, e\n commits the Class 4 Crime of Application Fraud.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2605, May 26 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3565 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404518,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1793,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Orders','Orders',990206480,'Rule 1793/0 (Power=1)\nOrders\n\n An Order is a command, executed by a Player and directed to some\n entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or\n to refrain from performing one or more actions.\n\n An Order may be directed to the holder of an Office or other\n official position in eir capacity as that Office or other\n official position, and in this case if the Office or position\n changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide\n by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that\n Office or position.\n\n Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Order, the purpose of which is\n to affect the operation of a prior Order, is as valid as any\n other Order, and is said to be directed at the prior Order it\n affects.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404519,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1798,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998','I Was Only Obeying Orders','I Was Only Obeying Orders',990206480,'Rule 1798/1 (Power=1)\nI Was Only Obeying Orders\n\n A Player who performs as required by an Order which is later\n found to be invalid shall not be convicted of a Crime, nor\n penalized by being billed, being removed from or retired\n from Office, becoming Tainted, or being deregistered,\n solely as a result of performing as required by the Order.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which would cause\n the Player to be convicted of a Crime or penalized, as\n described, for said action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998'),(404520,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1794,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',990206480,'Rule 1794/4 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n (a) Each Order is of one of the following classes:\n (1) Judicial: A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a\n Player while acting as a Judge.\n (2) Appellate: An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a\n Board of Appeals.\n (3) Administrative: An Administrative Order is an Order\n executed by an Officer in the course of performing the\n duties of that Office, except when those duties involve\n acting as a member of a Board of Appeals.\n (4) Legislative: A Legislative Order is an Order executed as\n part of the effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n (5) Private: A Private Order is any Order not described above.\n\n (b) For the purpose of this Rule, the holder of any of the\n following positions shall be considered an Officer when\n performing a duty required by or a privilege permitted only\n by virtue of holding that position:\n (1) the Speaker; or\n (2) the Recordkeepor of a Currency.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001'),(404521,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1795,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999','Timing Requirements of Orders','Timing Requirements of Orders',990206480,'Rule 1795/3 (Power=1)\nTiming Requirements of Orders\n\n An Order which commands the performance of an action may specify\n when that action is to be performed; if no specification is\n given, or the specification given would require the\n performance of the action at a time when the Order is without\n effect, or if the specification given would allow less than\n 72 hours from the time when the Order takes effect to perform\n the action, then the Order shall be taken to require the\n performance of the action as soon as possible after the Order\n takes effect.\n\n If an Order which commands the performance of an action is\n directed to an Office or other position of authority, and the\n holder of that position of authority changes after the Order\n takes effect, but before the Order is satisfied, and the\n specification would require the performance of the action at a\n time before the current holder of the position came to hold\n that position, or would allow less than 72 hours from the time\n the current holder of the position came to hold that position,\n then the Order shall be taken to require the performance of the\n action as soon as possible after the current holder of the\n position came to hold that position. However, this shall\n not be taken to absolve the previous holder of the position\n of any penalties e might otherwise incur.\n\n Other Rules may establish other times by which Orders must be\n performed. The noncompliance of an Order with this Rule does\n not deprive that Order of all effect, but instead modifies the\n effect of that Order with respect to the time at which or by\n which the actions it requires must be performed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999'),(404522,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1796,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Validity of Orders','Validity of Orders',990206480,'Rule 1796/0 (Power=1)\nValidity of Orders\n\n All Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for\n their class and type are presumed valid and enforceable until\n proven otherwise by CFJ.\n\n In order to be proven valid by CFJ, the Rules must permit the\n Player who executed the Order in question to execute such an\n Order, that the execution of the Order must have been required\n by or permitted in the circumstances which existed at the time\n it was executed, and that the Order has not been rendered\n invalid by the operation of any other Rule.\n\n Furthermore, no Order may act to prevent or hinder its own\n appeal in any way, and any portion of an Order which has this\n effect is void and without force.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404523,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1797,'Amended() by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Abuse of Authority','Abuse of Authority',990206480,'Rule 1797/1 (Power=1)\nAbuse of Authority\n\n Knowingly and willfully executing invalid Orders constitutes the\n Class 10 Crime of Abuse of Authority.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended() by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404524,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1799,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Amendment, Stay, and Vacation of Orders','Amendment, Stay, and Vacation of Orders',990206480,'Rule 1799/2 (Power=1)\nAmendment, Stay, and Vacation of Orders\n\n Any Order may always be amended, stayed, or vacated by the\n Player (or, in the case of Appellate Orders, Board of Appeal)\n who executed it. Certain classes of Orders may be amended,\n stayed, or vacated in other circumstances as well, when the\n Rules so allow. In all cases, this is done by an Order to\n Amend, Stay, or Vacate, respectively, the original Order.\n\n Otherwise, an Order shall not be amended, stayed, vacated, or\n otherwise changed once executed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404525,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1800,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Amendment of Orders','Amendment of Orders',990206480,'Rule 1800/0 (Power=1)\nAmendment of Orders\n\n The effect of amending an Order is to cause it to be effective\n in its amended form. The prior form of the Order ceases to have\n effect upon the amendment, and the new form has effect as if it\n had been originally executed in that form at the moment the\n amendment becomes effective.\n\n Vacating an Order to Amend has the same effect as would an Order\n to Amend reinstating the previous form of the Order.\n\n Amending a stayed or vacated Order does not grant the stayed or\n vacated Order effect it would otherwise not have.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404526,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1801,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Stay of Orders','Stay of Orders',990206480,'Rule 1801/0 (Power=1)\nStay of Orders\n\n The effect of staying an Order is to temporarily deny the stayed\n Order from having any effect.\n\n A stay may be ordered for a fixed time, in which case the stay\n expires at the time specified; or for an indefinite time, in\n which case the stay will not expire. If no specification is\n made in the Order to Stay, the stay shall be indefinite.\n\n When the stay expires or is vacated, the previously stayed order\n again has effect as if it had been originally executed at the\n moment the stay ceases to be effective. However, if at the time\n the staying Order expires or otherwise ceases to have effect,\n the stayed Order has been vacated or is subject to another\n staying Order, it does not regain effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404527,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1802,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Vacation of Orders','Vacation of Orders',990206480,'Rule 1802/0 (Power=1)\nVacation of Orders\n\n The effect of vacating an Order is to permanently deny the\n vacated Order from having any effect. Vacating an Order to\n Vacate reinstates the ability of the vacated Order to have\n effect, as of the moment the Order to Vacate is itself vacated.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404528,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1808,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Administrative and Private Orders','Administrative and Private Orders',990206480,'Rule 1808/2 (Power=1)\nAdministrative and Private Orders\n\n Administrative Orders are executed by being published and take\n effect upon publication.\n\n Private Orders are executed by submitting them to the Player to\n be commanded, and take effect upon submission.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3793 (Steve), Oct. 6 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404529,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1809,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Appeal of Administrative and Private Orders','Appeal of Administrative and Private Orders',990206480,'Rule 1809/0 (Power=1)\nAppeal of Administrative and Private Orders\n\n Both Administrative and Private Orders are subject to appeal by\n a CFJ, the statement of which Statement alleges that the Order\n is improperly or invalidly executed.\n\n Upon a judicial finding that an Administrative or Private Order\n was improperly or invalidly executed, the Judge so finding shall\n vacate that Order.\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts receives a properly executed Call\n for Judgement, the statement of which alleges that an\n Administrative or Private Order was improperly or invalidly\n executed, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay the Order in\n dispute. If the Judge affirms the validity of the original\n Order, e shall then vacate this stay.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404530,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1810,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001','Noncompliance with Orders','Noncompliance with Orders',990206480,'Rule 1810/3 (Power=1)\nNoncompliance with Orders\n\n An Order requiring an entity to perform an action is satisfied\n when that entity performs that action. Other Rules may define\n other ways for Orders to be satisfied.\n\n If an Order requires an entity to perform an action prior to a\n specified time, and the Order is not satisfied prior to that\n time specified in the Order commits the Class 4 Crime of\n Contempt by Inaction.\n\n Except when otherwise specified, a single action can result in\n the satisfaction of at most one Order. If an action would\n satisfy more than one Order, and no other specification is made,\n the Action satisfies the oldest Order which it would satisfy.\n\n This Rule shall have no application with respect to any Order\n which has been adjudicated to be invalid, and the invalidity of\n the Order is a complete defense to a Criminal accusation made\n under this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3954 (Elysion), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001'),(404531,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1811,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Contempt by Action','Contempt by Action',990206480,'Rule 1811/1 (Power=1)\nContempt by Action\n\n Any entity who, while required by an Order to refrain from\n performing an action, performs the proscribed action while the\n Order is in effect commits the Class 4 Crime of Contempt by\n Action.\n\n This Rule shall have no application with respect to any Order\n which has been adjudicated to be invalid, and the invalidity of\n the Order is a complete defense to a Criminal accusation made\n under this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404532,'rcs','00000001.00000001',889,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',990206480,'Rule 889/10 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n There exists the Office of Clerk of the Courts, whose\n responsibility it is to oversee the judicial system.\n\n The Monthly Report of the Clerk of the Courts shall include the\n Stare Decisis, which is a list of past Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs). The following information shall be included for each\n CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the Clerk shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may, Without\n Objection, remove any CFJ from the list that e deems no longer\n relevant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000'),(404533,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1450,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998','Speaker Cannot Stay CotC or Justiciar','Speaker Cannot Stay CotC or Justiciar',990206480,'Rule 1450/2 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Cannot Stay CotC or Justiciar\n\n If at any time the Speaker shall be the Electee to either\n the Office of CotC or the Office of Justiciar, e shall be\n retired from whichever of those Offices e is Electee to.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998'),(404534,'rcs','00000001.00000001',991,'Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996','Invoking Judgement','Invoking Judgement',990206480,'Rule 991/3 (Power=2)\nInvoking Judgement\n\n Any Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a\n Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. For the purpose\n of this and other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement\n shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.\n\n Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is\n clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement.\n\n The Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement,\n along with any additional material submitted by the Caller\n (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not\n later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge\n assigned to Judge it.\n\n[CFJ 888: Non-Players may make Calls for Judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996'),(404535,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1831,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Filing a CFJ with the Justiciar','Filing a CFJ with the Justiciar',990206480,'Rule 1831/0 (Power=1)\nFiling a CFJ with the Justiciar\n\n A CFJ alleging that the Clerk of the Courts has failed to\n perform a duty of eir Office may, at the Caller\'s option, be\n filed with the Justiciar, who shall then perform all the duties\n of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to that CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404536,'rcs','00000001.00000001',897,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999','Barring Players from Judgement','Barring Players from Judgement',990206480,'Rule 897/2 (Power=1)\nBarring Players from Judgement\n\n The Caller of a CFJ may Bar up to three Players from Judging\n that CFJ.\n\n Any Player whose Executor is the Caller of a CFJ is Barred from\n Judging that CFJ.\n\n Any Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n[CFJ 1117, Judged TRUE Feb. 6 1999: \"Players may bar Players from\n Judgement in the sense of Rule 897 by specifying the Players to be\n barred at a time other than that of the submission of the CFJ.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 897, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999'),(404537,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1562,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Excess CFJs','Excess CFJs',990206480,'Rule 1562/5 (Power=1)\nExcess CFJs\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall dismiss without prejudice any CFJ\n made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during that Nomic Week. Such a CFJ is called an \"excess CFJ\".\n A Player who submits an excess CFJ commits the Class 1\n Infraction of Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Clerk of the\n Courts.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts fails to dismiss an excess CFJ, and\n instead assigns it to a Judge, then the CFJ shall not be\n dismissed for being an excess CFJ and shall be Judged (or\n dismissed) exactly as any other CFJ. Failing to dismiss an\n excess CFJ is the Class 2 Infraction of Allowing Excess CFJing,\n to be reported by the Justiciar.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404538,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1563,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3574 (Kolja A.) , Oct. 30 1997, substantial','Statement of a CFJ','Statement of a CFJ',990206480,'Rule 1563/1 (Power=1)\nStatement of a CFJ\n\n In order to be Judged, a Call for Judgement must contain a\n single clearly-labeled Statement which must be able to be\n determined by the means of logical reasoning, with the\n presumption of perfect knowledge, to be either TRUE or FALSE.\n Statements which are inherently contradictory or which are\n vacuous are not acceptable, and a CFJ containing such a\n Statement shall not be Judged.\n\n If a CFJ fails to meet the requirements of this or of other\n rules it lacks standing and is to be dismissed.\n\n It is permitted for a Call for Judgement to contain Arguments,\n Evidence, or other material placed there at the Caller\'s\n discretion. However, the Judge is not required to take notice\n of any part of the CFJ other than the Statement in formulating\n eir Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3574 (Kolja A.) , Oct. 30 1997, substantial'),(404539,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1868,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',990206480,'Rule 1868/1 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n Whenever there is an open Call for Judgement to which no Player\n has been assigned as its Judge, the Clerk of the Court shall, as\n soon as possible after being made aware of this condition,\n select a Player to be assigned as its Judge. This selection\n shall be made from amongst all those Players eligible to serve\n as the Judge of that CFJ.\n\n Once selected as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the\n Judge of that CFJ until e is Recused from that CFJ or becomes\n ineligible to Judge that particular CFJ.\n\n The Clerk shall announce the identity of the Player who is\n assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection\n is made.\n\n A CFJ is \"open\" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or\n if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to that\n CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is\n not open is closed.\n\nCFJ 1186, Judged TRUE Dec. 9 1999: \"The Clerk of the Courts is\nrequired by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time\nthat the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\neligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.\"\n\n[CFJ 1187, Judged TRUE Dec. 8 1999: \"A Judge is considered to be\n assigned to Judge a particular CFJ at the time that the Clerk of the\n Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and no sooner.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000'),(404540,'rcs','00000001.00000001',698,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',990206480,'Rule 698/6 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some\n Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e becomes\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all\n Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by\n the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding\n the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall\n be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller\n shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora\n without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling at a later date.\n\n This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to\n Judge a given CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404541,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1871,'Created by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999','Turns for All','Turns for All',990206480,'Rule 1871/0 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Whenever a Player is selected to judge a CFJ, e becomes\n ineligible to judge any future CFJs. If ever there are no\n Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Players made\n ineligible by this rule become eligible again.\n\n Being made ineligible to judge a CFJ by this rule does not cause\n a Player to become ineligible to serve as a Justice on that CFJ.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which claims otherwise.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999'),(404542,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1567,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000','Making Oneself Ineligible to Judge a CFJ','Making Oneself Ineligible to Judge a CFJ',990206480,'Rule 1567/9 (Power=1)\nMaking Oneself Ineligible to Judge a CFJ\n\n A Player makes emself ineligible to be the Judge of a specific\n CFJ or type of CFJ by transmitting a notice to the Clerk of the\n Courts, specifying the CFJ or type of CFJ for which e wishes to\n be made ineligible. Such a notice remains in effect until the\n Player informs the Clerk of the Courts that it is no longer in\n effect.\n\n If a Player makes emself ineligible to be a Judge of a CFJ for\n which e has already been selected as Judge, e commits the Class\n 0.1 Infraction of Shirking Judgeship, to be reported by the\n CotC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000'),(404543,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1568,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Judges On Hold','Judges On Hold',990206480,'Rule 1568/5 (Power=1)\nJudges On Hold\n\n Any Player who goes on Hold while selected as the Judge of one\n or more CFJs commits the Infraction of Judge Inactivity. This\n Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts, and has\n a penalty of 0.1 Indulgences times the number of CFJs for which\n the Player was selected as Judge when e went On Hold.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404544,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1756,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Delinquent Judges','Delinquent Judges',990206480,'Rule 1756/3 (Power=1)\nDelinquent Judges\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall recuse from a CFJ any Judge who\n is delinquent upon the public demand of any two Players.\n\n A Judge recused for delinquency commits the Class 2 Infraction\n of Judicial Delinquency, to be reported by the CotC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404545,'rcs','00000001.00000001',408,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000','Late Judgement','Late Judgement',990206480,'Rule 408/14 (Power=1)\nLate Judgement\n\n The Deliberation Period for a CFJ begins when the Clerk of the\n Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and ends seven days\n later.\n\n In the week following the end of the Deliberation Period, if the\n Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed the CFJ, then\n the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge from the CFJ and\n assign it to a new Judge, by posting an announcement to that\n effect.\n\n A Judge who Judges or Dismisses a CFJ after the end of the\n Deliberation Period, but before being recused as a Judge,\n commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n A Judge who has neither Judged nor Dismissed a CFJ seven days\n after the end of its Deliberation Period is automatically\n recused from that CFJ.\n\n A Judge who is recused from a CFJ in accordance with this Rule\n commits the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge (to be\n detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts), and becomes\n ineligible to be a Judge until e publicly requests to be made\n eligible again.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 215, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2587, May 1 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Aug. 14 1997, susbstantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Rule 408, Aug. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposl 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000'),(404546,'rcs','00000001.00000001',591,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Legal Judgements','Legal Judgements',990206480,'Rule 591/17 (Power=1)\nLegal Judgements\n\n A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of\n the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or\n FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ.\n\n As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the\n Clerk shall publish the Judgement.\n\n If a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of\n the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the\n Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as\n soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement.\n\n[In the Judgement of CFJ 794, the CotC determined that a Judgement\n of the form \"If X then TRUE else FALSE\" is legal only if the truth-\n value of X itself is unambiguous.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1451, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmedned(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404547,'rcs','00000001.00000001',217,'Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules',990206480,'Rule 217/3 (Power=1)\nJudgements Must Accord with the Rules\n\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however,\n if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the\n Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game\n custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of\n the game before applying other standards.\n\n[CFJ 684: An Injunction on the interpretation of a Rule is part of\n Game Custom.\n CFJ 897: The requirements in Rule 217 on Judgements apply to the\n determinations of the members of a Board of Appeal, as well as to\n the Judgements of Judges.\n CFJ 1139, Judged Jun. 20 1999: Judgements need not necessarily accord\n with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or Justices given in\n past CFJs.\n CFJ 1219, Judged May 23, 2000, Appeal decision published, Jun. 13\n 2000: A mistaken Judgement (ie one that does not accord with the\n Rules) is still a Judgement, as long as the technical requirements on\n the delivery of the Judgement have been met.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996'),(404548,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1575,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3968 (Harvel), Feb. 4 2000','Standards of Proof','Standards of Proof',990206480,'Rule 1575/4 (Power=1)\nStandards of Proof\n\n A CFJ alleging that a Player has violated a Rule or committed a\n Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient\n to be certain of that Judgement beyond reasonable doubt.\n\n In all other CFJs, the Judgement shall be consistent with the\n preponderance of the evidence at hand.\n\n Furthermore, it is a defense to any accusation of a Crime that\n the Player reasonably believed that eir actions were not a\n Crime at the time e performed them, or that e reasonably did not\n know that e was required to perform an action, when such\n nonperformance is defined as a Crime. A Player shall not be\n convicted of a Crime if this defense applies.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2469, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3603 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3653 (General Chaos), Jan. 1 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3968 (Harvel), Feb. 4 2000'),(404549,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1768,'Created by Proposal 3676 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998','Evidentiary Status of Officer Reports','Evidentiary Status of Officer Reports',990206480,'Rule 1768/0 (Power=1)\nEvidentiary Status of Officer Reports\n\n The published Report of an Officer constitutes prima facie\n evidence of the truth of those matters reported therein which\n that Officer is required by law to report. This presumption may\n be set aside only by clear and convincing evidence to the\n contrary.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3676 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998'),(404550,'rcs','00000001.00000001',451,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial','Determination of Judgement--Timing','Determination of Judgement--Timing',990206480,'Rule 451/3 (Power=1)\nDetermination of Judgement--Timing\n\n When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement\n contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the\n truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was\n issued.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 451 (Alexx), Sep. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1412, Feb. 1 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)'),(404551,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1565,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Dismissal of a CFJ','Dismissal of a CFJ',990206480,'Rule 1565/9 (Power=1)\nDismissal of a CFJ\n\n A Judge must dismiss a CFJ if one of the following is true of\n it:\n\n i) It contains no clearly-identifiable Statement.\n ii) Its Statement can not logically admit to either being TRUE\n or FALSE.\n iii) Its Statement does not relate to a matter relevant to the\n Rules.\n iv) Its Statement fails to comply with the Rules.\n v) It lacks standing, as defined elsewhere.\n vi) After a reasonable effort by the Judge to obtain all\n relevant information, no determination can be made of the\n truth or falsity of its Statement.\n\n The Judge does this by notifying the CotC of the CFJ\'s\n dismissal, and the reasons e is doing so. Dismissals are only\n legal when made for the reasons listed in this Rule. Dismissal\n occurs when the CotC is notified of a legal dismissal.\n\n As soon as possible after being notified of a legal dismissal,\n the CotC must publicly post a notice of the dismissal and the\n Judge\'s reasons for doing so.\n\n If the dismissal, upon appeal, is subsequently set aside, then\n that CFJ is no longer dismissed. It shall be considered again\n and can not again be legally dismissed for the same reasons.\n\n A Judge who dismisses a CFJ before the end of the assigned\n deliberation period shall receive a Judicial Salary.\n\n[CFJ 909, Mar. 17 1997: The phrase \'considered again\' in Rule 1565\n should be interpreted such that when a dismissal of a CFJ has been\n set aside, the Clerk of the Courts should assign the CFJ to a new\n Judge selected from among those eligible, who then has one week to\n deliver a Judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2683, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3563 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3574 (Kolja A.), Oct. 30 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404552,'rcs','00000001.00000001',502,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Salary for Judges','Salary for Judges',990206480,'Rule 502/7 (Power=1)\nSalary for Judges\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a\n Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to\n that Player.\n\n If a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning\n a Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed and overturned on\n appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall bill that Player for an\n amount equal to the Judicial Salary paid to that Player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 430 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 13 1993\nAmended by Proposal 502 (Ronald Kunne), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1501, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3635 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404553,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1803,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Judicial Orders','Judicial Orders',990206480,'Rule 1803/0 (Power=1)\nJudicial Orders\n\n Judicial Orders are executed by being sent to the Clerk of the\n Courts, but do not take effect until their publication by the\n Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each\n Judicial Order as soon as possible after receiving it from the\n Judge who executed it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404554,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1804,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Appeal of Judicial Orders','Appeal of Judicial Orders',990206480,'Rule 1804/0 (Power=1)\nAppeal of Judicial Orders\n\n Judicial Orders are subject to appeal to a Board of Appeal by a\n Call for Appeal.\n\n The Board of Appeal shall, upon finding that a Judicial Order is\n improperly or invalidly executed, order that that Order be\n amended or vacated, as it deems appropriate.\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts receives a properly executed Call\n for Appeal of a Judicial Order, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n stay the Order under appeal. If the Board of Appeals affirms\n the validity of the original Order, it shall then vacate this\n stay.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404555,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1826,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Motions','Motions',990206480,'Rule 1826/0 (Power=1)\nMotions\n\n A Motion is a formal request made by a Player to the Judge of a\n CFJ.\n\n A Motion is made by submitting it to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly identifying the CFJ to which the Motion applies.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall forward each properly-filed Motion\n to the Judge of the CFJ to which the Motion applies as soon as\n possible after receiving it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404556,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1827,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000','Granting or Denying Motions','Granting or Denying Motions',990206480,'Rule 1827/2 (Power=1)\nGranting or Denying Motions\n\n A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by\n the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was\n received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons\n for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by\n sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the\n Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.\n\n The effect of granting a Motion depends on the nature of the\n Motion granted, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to\n perform as requested by the Motion.\n\n Upon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk\n shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on\n the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the\n Motion of that determination.\n\n If a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within seven days\n of when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, e\n commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Slow Motion, detected\n and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If this occurs,\n the Clerk of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign\n a new one as usual.\n\n If a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original\n Judge of that case is no longer a Player or is On Hold, then\n a new Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000'),(404557,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1828,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999','Motions Requesting Judicial Orders','Motions Requesting Judicial Orders',990206480,'Rule 1828/1 (Power=1)\nMotions Requesting Judicial Orders\n\n Any Player may formally request a Judge issue any Judicial Order\n by filing a motion requesting that Order. If granted, the Judge\n shall issue the Order requested.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999'),(404558,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1509,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Orders to Compel','Orders to Compel',990206480,'Rule 1509/3 (Power=1)\nOrders to Compel\n\n Upon a judicial finding that a Player has failed to perform a\n duty required of em by the Rules, the Judge so finding shall\n execute an Order, requiring that Player to perform that duty as\n soon as possible. Such an Order is known as an Order to\n Compel.\n\n If the duty in question arises because the Player in question\n holds a specific Office or other position of official\n responsibility, the Order shall be directed to that Office or\n position. If the Player holding that Office fails to perform\n the duty in question as ordered, the Judge shall Order that that\n Player be removed from Office or position.\n\n If the duty in question arises for a reason not related to the\n Player in question holding a specific Office or official\n position, and that Player fails to perform the duty as ordered,\n the Judge shall amend the Order to require the Speaker to\n perform that duty instead.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1690, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1738, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404559,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1829,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998','Refusal of Duty by the Speaker','Refusal of Duty by the Speaker',990206480,'Rule 1829/1 (Power=1)\nRefusal of Duty by the Speaker\n\n If the Speaker is convicted of the Crime of Contempt by\n Inaction, relating to a validly issued Order to Compel which was\n directed at the position of Speaker, the Speaker becomes\n Tainted.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998'),(404560,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1830,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','No Compulsion of Judges','No Compulsion of Judges',990206480,'Rule 1830/0 (Power=1)\nNo Compulsion of Judges\n\n No valid Order to Compel may be directed to a Judge, or may\n require the performance of any duty required of Player by the\n virtue of that Player being a Judge. Any such Order is invalid.\n Any CFJ alleging that a Judge has failed to perform a duty of a\n judicial nature shall be dismissed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404561,'rcs','00000001.00000001',789,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998','Orders to Annotate Rules','Orders to Annotate Rules',990206480,'Rule 789/5 (Power=1)\nOrders to Annotate Rules\n\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ.\n Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of\n that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that\n Rule is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order;\n or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or\n vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate\n a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be\n modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n[CFJ 684: Such an Order applies not only during Judging, but\n also in the everyday interpretation of the Rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 789 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2684, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998'),(404562,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1500,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998','Orders to Annotate SLCs','Orders to Annotate SLCs',990206480,'Rule 1500/6 (Power=1)\nOrders to Annotate SLCs\n\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that an SLC\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Maintainer\n of that SLC to annotate the SLC in question with the Statement\n of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide\n application of that SLC.\n\n The Maintainer of that SLC may remove such an annotation only\n if the SLC ceases to exist; if required to do so by a valid\n Order; or if the original Order to Annotate is amended, stayed,\n or vacated. The Maintainer of an SLC may vacate an Order to\n annotate that SLC Without Objection. Annotations to an SLC may\n not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Maintainer of\n that SLC to remove the annotation in question.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1677, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2576, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2684, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998'),(404563,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1742,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Agreements between Players','Agreements between Players',990206480,'Rule 1742/2 (Power=1)\nAgreements between Players\n\n Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding under the Rules. If such\n an agreement is subsequently broken, any Player party to that\n agreement may then call a CFJ alleging that the agreement has\n been broken. If the Judge of such a CFJ finds that the\n agreement was entered into with the intention that the\n agreement be binding under the Rules and that the agreement has\n in fact been broken, e may Order the breaching party to:\n (1) transfer Property to the other party or parties to remedy\n the damages from the breach,\n (2) perform according to the agreement, or\n (3) perform such other substitute acts as would fairly serve\n the interests of the agreement.\n E may further Order the other parties of the agreement to\n perform such acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice.\n\n Nothing in this Rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n A CFJ alleging that an agreement has been broken called by\n anyone who is not party to that agreement lacks standing and\n shall be dismissed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404564,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1365,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions',990206480,'Rule 1365/6 (Power=1)\nConcurring and Dissenting Opinions\n\n There shall exist a type of Application called an Application\n to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has\n the effect of annotating a Judgement or Dismissal in a given\n Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have\n effect upon Execution, it must satisfy the following\n requirements:\n\n * It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies.\n * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or\n a Dissenting Opinion.\n * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to\n which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the\n Appeals Court.\n * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations\n of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom.\n * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players.\n * It must be Executed no earlier than the submission of the\n Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than\n one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of\n that Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n An Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed by submitting\n it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having\n been Executed and having met all the requirements for\n effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred\n to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as\n indicated in the Opinion.\n\n Once an Application to Submit an Opinion is Executed and takes\n effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to\n all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must\n be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1365, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Nov. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2750 (Chuck), Nov. 18 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)'),(404565,'rcs','00000001.00000001',911,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',990206480,'Rule 911/8 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration when it was called, and this\n restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from\n being selected by the CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (ROnald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial'),(404566,'rcs','00000001.00000001',910,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999','The Justiciar','The Justiciar',990206480,'Rule 910/9 (Power=1)\nThe Justiciar\n\n There exists the Office of Justiciar, whose responsibility it is\n to serve on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\n The Speaker and the Clerk of the Courts cannot Nominate for the\n Office of Justiciar.\n\n If the Justiciar ever becomes Clerk of the Courts, e is removed\n from the Office of Justiciar.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 910, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1581, May 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2569, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999'),(404567,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1833,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Lead Justice','Lead Justice',990206480,'Rule 1833/0 (Power=1)\nLead Justice\n\n The Lead Justice of a Board of Appeals is the Justiciar, if e is\n serving on that Board, or the Player who serves in the place of\n the Justiciar otherwise.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404568,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1570,'Created by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996','Announcement of Appeal','Announcement of Appeal',990206480,'Rule 1570/0 (Power=1)\nAnnouncement of Appeal\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall make an announcement in the Public\n Forum as soon as possible after an Appeal has been initiated,\n including in eir announcement the matter of consideration of the\n Appeal and the identity of the Justices selected to serve on the\n Board of Appeals and which (if any) of these Players are\n ineligible to fill the positions to which they have been\n assigned.\n\n The Clerk shall also make an announcement to the Public Forum as\n soon as possible after any change in the identity of the\n Justices that takes place after the Board has been constituted.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996'),(404569,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1564,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',990206480,'Rule 1564/10 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The Judgement entered in any CFJ by its Judge, the grant or\n denial of any Motion, and the execution of any Judicial Order\n are all subject to review on appeal to a Board of Appeal. In\n addition, a Board of Appeal shall review any claim that a Judge\n has failed to perform any duty of a Judicial nature which e was\n required to perform.\n\n In all cases, the public insistence of any three Players is\n sufficient to initiate the appeal of a particular matter. In\n the case of the appeal of a Judicial Order, the insistence of\n any Player bound by the Order is sufficient. In the case of a\n Judgement which convicts a Player of a Crime, the insistence of\n the convicted Player is sufficient.\n\n In each cases before a Board of Appeal, it shall collectively\n decide whether to affirm or to reverse the matter under appeal,\n and shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are necessary to\n enforce its determination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404570,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1447,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Final Judgement upon Appeal','Final Judgement upon Appeal',990206480,'Rule 1447/16 (Power=1)\nFinal Judgement upon Appeal\n\n Once a Board of Appeals has been selected to decide a particular\n appeal, the Justices shall, collectively, consider the question.\n\n Each Justice has seven days, from the point e becomes Justice on\n a particular Board, in which to reach a determination that\n either sustains or overturns the matter being considered by that\n Board and submit it to the CotC.\n\n Failure to do so is the Class 3 Infraction of Failing to Judge\n an Appeal, detected and reported by the Cotc. A Justice who does\n not submit eir determination to the CotC within seven days is\n immediately recused as a Justice from that Board. In this case\n the CotC must randomly select an eligible Player to replace em.\n\n After all three Justices have submitted their determinations to\n the CotC, the CotC shall publish these determinations along with\n any arguments, evidence, or other material included with those\n determinations.\n\n If a majority of the Justices agree to sustain the matter being\n considered, it is sustained; otherwise, it is overturned. The\n specific results of overturning a matter upon appeal are\n determined by the Rules permitting such appeals.\n\n If a Justice submits eir determination to the Clerk of the\n Courts before the end of the assigned deliberation period,\n then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to that Justice\n the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication\n of eir determination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1656, Aug. 14 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 10 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4109 (Steve), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404571,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1693,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3573 (Steve), Oct. 30 1997, substantial','Appeal of a Judgement','Appeal of a Judgement',990206480,'Rule 1693/1 (Power=1)\nAppeal of a Judgement\n\n If the Judgement of a CFJ is Appealed, the Board of Appeals\n shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. The Board may\n rule that the original Judgement was either correct or\n incorrect.\n\n If a majority of the Justices find that the original Judgement\n was correct, then the Board\'s ruling is that the original\n Judgement was correct. In that case, the original Judge of the\n CFJ shall retain eir Judicial Salary and the original Judgement\n has legal effect.\n\n If a majority of the Justices find that the original Judgement\n was incorrect, then the Board\'s ruling is that the original\n Judgement was incorrect. In that case, the original Judge\n of the CFJ shall forfeit eir Judicial Salary. The Board may\n then act in one of three ways, provided that a majority of\n the Justices agree:\n\n i) Reversal of the Judgement. In this case, the CFJ shall\n be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the\n Judgement being that which a majority of the Justices\n agree on.\n ii) Dismissal of the CFJ. The CFJ shall be considered\n dismissed.\n iii) Re-assignment of the CFJ. In this case, the original\n Judgement shall be ignored, and the CotC shall reassign\n the CFJ to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was\n originally assigned; the original Judge will be\n considered Ineligible. The new Judge cannot make the\n same Judgement as the original Judge for the same\n reason.\n\n If a majority of the Justices find that the original Judgement\n was incorrect, but no majority of the Justices agree on what\n action to take, then the CFJ shall be re-assigned as above.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3573 (Steve), Oct. 30 1997, substantial'),(404572,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1694,'Created by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997','Appeal of a Dismissal','Appeal of a Dismissal',990206480,'Rule 1694/0 (Power=1)\nAppeal of a Dismissal\n\n If the dismissal of a CFJ is Appealed, the Board shall not\n consider the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they\n shall only consider whether the dismissal was properly\n made. An illegal dismissal shall not be considered\n \"properly made.\"\n\n If the Board finds the dismissal to have been properly\n made, the original Judge of the CFJ shall retain eir\n Judicial Salary, and the CFJ shall remain dismissed.\n\n If the Board finds the dismissal to have been made\n improperly, the original Judge of the CFJ shall have eir\n Judicial Salary revoked. The CotC shall reassign the CFJ\n to a new Judge in the same fashion as originally\n assigned; the new Judge cannot dismiss it for the same\n reasons as given by the original Judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997'),(404573,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1805,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Appellate Orders','Appellate Orders',990206480,'Rule 1805/0 (Power=1)\nAppellate Orders\n\n Appellate Orders are executed by being sent to the Clerk of the\n Courts by the Lead Justice of a Board of Appeals, but do not\n take effect until their publication by the Clerk of the Courts.\n The Lead Justice shall certify in eir submission to the Clerk of\n the Courts that the Order is executed by the concurrence of the\n majority of the Justices comprising that Board of Appeals;\n failure to do so deprives the Order of effect.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as\n soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal\n which executed it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404574,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1806,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','No Appeal of Appellate Orders','No Appeal of Appellate Orders',990206480,'Rule 1806/0 (Power=1)\nNo Appeal of Appellate Orders\n\n Appellate Orders are not subject to appeal. However, upon a\n judicial finding that the required certification was falsely\n provided, the Justiciar shall vacate the Order which was\n accompanied by that false certification.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404575,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1807,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Validity of Appellate Orders','Validity of Appellate Orders',990206480,'Rule 1807/0 (Power=1)\nValidity of Appellate Orders\n\n Since Appellate Orders cannot be appealed, Appellate Orders are\n valid only if addressed to:\n a) The Clerk of the Courts in eir Official capacity;\n b) an Order issued by the Clerk of the Courts in eir Official\n Capacity;\n c) The Judge of the CFJ which that Board of Appeals was\n convened to consider, or any Order issued by that Judge in\n that particular CFJ; or\n d) any combination of the above.\n\n All other Appellate Orders are presumptively invalid.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n validity of Appellate Orders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404576,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1695,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Appeals of Judicial Orders','Appeals of Judicial Orders',990206480,'Rule 1695/2 (Power=1)\nAppeals of Judicial Orders\n\n In the appeal of a Judicial Order, the Board shall consider\n whether the Order in question was both legally made and\n appropriate for the situation.\n\n If the Board finds that the Order was made legally, and was\n appropriate for the situation, it shall affirm the Order. If an\n Order staying the execution of the appealed Order was entered,\n it shall vacate this stay.\n\n If the Board finds that the Order was made illegally, or that it\n was inappropriate for the situation, it shall vacate the\n original Order. Should the Board further find that the Order\n was made without reasonable justification or for a clearly\n improper purpose, it shall (at its discretion) impose a penalty\n of 2 Blots upon the Judge who made the original Order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404577,'rcs','00000001.00000001',908,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','Formal Apologies','Formal Apologies',990206480,'Rule 908/13 (Power=1)\nFormal Apologies\n\n If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges\n that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed\n to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules\n is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player\n to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is\n Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties\n by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then\n the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the\n Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement.\n\n A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200\n words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s\n error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.\n\n The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include\n in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen\n by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If\n the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words\n required must appear within the Formal Apology.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 781, ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 908, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1362, Dec. 13 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1382, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2432, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Apr. 1 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2789 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, Nov. 11 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 908, Nov. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404578,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1832,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Failure to Apologize','Failure to Apologize',990206480,'Rule 1832/1 (Power=1)\nFailure to Apologize\n\n The failure to abide by an Order to Submit a Formal Apology is\n the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, to be reported\n by the Judge who issued the original Order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404579,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1503,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001','Crimes and Infractions','Crimes and Infractions',990206480,'Rule 1503/5 (Power=1)\nCrimes and Infractions\n\n An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction only if defined\n as such by the Rules.\n\n An entity may be convicted of a Crime only by a judicial finding\n that e has committed that Crime. An entity may be convicted of\n an Infraction only by announcement of a Player authorized by the\n Rules to report the commission of that Infraction.\n\n The commission of a Crime or Infraction may be penalized only as\n defined by the Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2700, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001'),(404580,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1504,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','Sentencing Orders','Sentencing Orders',990206480,'Rule 1504/6 (Power=1)\nSentencing Orders\n\n The imposition of penalties for the commission of a Crime shall\n be by Sentencing Order(s). Upon a judicial finding that an\n entity has committed a Crime, the Judge so finding shall execute\n Sentencing Orders sufficient to implement the penalty required\n by the Rules for that Crime.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404581,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1812,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001','Notices of Infraction','Notices of Infraction',990206480,'Rule 1812/4 (Power=1)\nNotices of Infraction\n\n If an entity (hereafter the Defendant) commits an Infraction,\n then any Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission\n of that Infraction may announce a Notice of Infraction. This\n Notice shall explicitly specify the following:\n\n a) The Infraction that has been committed.\n b) The identity of the Defendant.\n c) The Rule(s) defining that action or inaction as an\n Infraction.\n d) The action of inaction by which the Defendant committed the\n Infraction.\n e) Whatever Orders are sufficient to impose the penalty for\n the Infraction.\n\n If a Claim of Error alleging that the Defendant did not commit\n the Infraction is admitted, then the Player who announced the\n Notice of Infraction shall vacate all Orders that e executed to\n impose the penalty for the Infraction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3934 (Wes), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001'),(404582,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1814,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998','Timing of Penalties for Crimes and Infractions','Timing of Penalties for Crimes and Infractions',990206480,'Rule 1814/1 (Power=1)\nTiming of Penalties for Crimes and Infractions\n\n The punishment for a Crime or Infraction shall be whatever was\n specified by the Rules at the time the action so designated as a\n Crime or an Infraction was committed, even if the Rule or Rules\n which specified the punishment, or which designated the action\n as a Crime or Infraction, have since been amended or repealed.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which specifies\n a different penalty for a Crime or Infraction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998'),(404583,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1816,'Created by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998','No Double Jeopardy for Crimes','No Double Jeopardy for Crimes',990206480,'Rule 1816/0 (Power=1)\nNo Double Jeopardy for Crimes\n\n Any CFJ whose Statement alleges that an entity has, through\n action or inaction, committed a Crime shall be dismissed if\n there is a prior CFJ, the statement of which alleges that the\n same entity has, through the same action or inaction, committed\n the same Crime, and which was itself not dismissed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998'),(404584,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1505,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions',990206480,'Rule 1505/7 (Power=1)\nStandard Classes of Crimes and Infractions\n\n A Class N Crime or Infraction, where N is replaced with a\n number, is a Crime or Infraction for which the penalty is\n N Blots.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2431 (favor), Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1505, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404585,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1670,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001','The Distributor','The Distributor',990206480,'Rule 1670/13 (Power=1)\nThe Distributor\n\n The person who is most responsible for the maintainance of one\n or more Public Fora, in the opinion of the Registrar, shall be\n known as the Distributor. Any changes in the identity of the\n Distributor shall take effect when announced publicly by the\n Registrar.\n\n The Registrar is obliged to keep the Distributor informed of the\n e-mail addresses of all Players, as well as to inform the\n Distributor of any address change as soon as possible after e\n learns of it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 1670, May 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 4 1997, substantial,\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1670, Dec. 18 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3754 (Steve), Jun. 9 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001'),(404586,'rcs','00000001.00000001',559,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','The Registrar','The Registrar',990206480,'Rule 559/15 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of Players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered Players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including\n the Player subject to the Grace Period, the time at\n which it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready Players;\n\n (iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters\n are;\n\n (v) the most recent date on which each Player registered;\n\n (vi) each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that Player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vii) each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or\n Silent; and\n\n (viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir\n Term of Service).\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404587,'rcs','00000001.00000001',514,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 5 1996, substantial','Keep the Registrar Informed of Your Address','Keep the Registrar Informed of Your Address',990206480,'Rule 514/1 (Power=1)\nKeep the Registrar Informed of Your Address\n\n All Players shall notify the Registrar of their preferred email\n address(es). Should this address change, that Player shall\n notify the Registrar of this change. If a Player fails to\n notify the Registrar of a change of address, the Registrar shall\n not be responsible for any mail which did not reach that Player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 514 (Wes), Oct. 5 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 5 1996, substantial'),(404588,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1051,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',990206480,'Rule 1051/16 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility it\n is to maintain a list of all the Rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. Eir\n Monthly Report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000'),(404589,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1681,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',990206480,'Rule 1681/5 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the Ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each Rule is assigned to a Rule\n Category, and the Rules are grouped according to their Category.\n Within a Category, the ordering of Rules is decided by the\n Rulekeepor. All existing Rule Categories must be listed, even\n if no Rules are currently assigned to the Category.\n\n The listing of each Rule in the SLR must include:\n * The Rule Number\n * The Rule\'s Amendment Number\n * The Rule\'s Power\n * The Rule\'s Title\n * The Rule\'s text\n * Any annotations to the Rule required by Order\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the Ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, Rules are assigned to the\n same Category and presented in the same order as in the\n SLR. The FLR must contain all the information required\n to be in the SLR, as well as:\n * A brief description of each Category\n * Any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is\n required to record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the Ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000'),(404590,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1048,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Rule Categories','Rule Categories',990206480,'Rule 1048/7 (Power=1)\nRule Categories\n\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing\n Category to which the new Rule will be assigned. If it does\n not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule\'s Category. When\n doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and\n assign the Rule to this new Category.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.\n\n If the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must publicly\n announce it no later than the first subsequent publication of\n the Logical Ruleset.\n\n The Rulekeepor is authorized to change the name of a Rule\n Category or change the Category to which a Rule is assigned\n Without Objection.\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1561, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2538, Mar. 13 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404591,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1485,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000','Titles for Rules','Titles for Rules',990206480,'Rule 1485/8 (Power=1)\nTitles for Rules\n\n Each Rule has a Title, which is a single line of text\n containing not more than 60 characters. The Title must be\n listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule. However, the\n Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the\n meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience\n for the Players.\n\n A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for\n the new Rule. If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the\n new Rule\'s Title.\n\n The Rulekeepor is authorized to change the Title of a Rule\n Without Objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1634, Jul. 25 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1668, Aug. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1673, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1740, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000'),(404592,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1430,'Amended(4) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999','Mandatory Rule Annotations','Mandatory Rule Annotations',990206480,'Rule 1430/4 (Power=1)\nMandatory Rule Annotations\n\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the Rule giving the type of\n change, the source of the Change (that is, a reference to the\n Proposal and its Proposer, or Rule or other entity which\n mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the change took\n effect. Other Rules may require additional information to\n appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1430 (Kelly), Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2738 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999'),(404593,'rcs','00000001.00000001',649,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',990206480,'Rule 649/14 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly\n announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and\n which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or\n persons.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical\n Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that\n Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title\n immediately gains Hysterical Significance.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404594,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1044,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001','Unique Patent Titles','Unique Patent Titles',990206480,'Rule 1044/7 (Power=1)\nUnique Patent Titles\n\n Each Unique Patent Title is a Patent Title. If a person is\n awarded a Unique Patent Title, then it shall automatically be\n revoked from any person already Bearing that Title.\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1335, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001'),(404595,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1923,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001','Defined Unique Patent Titles','Defined Unique Patent Titles',990206480,'Rule 1923/6 (Power=1)\nDefined Unique Patent Titles\n\n The following are Unique Patent Titles:\n\n (b) Robespierre, which shall automatically be awarded to the\n Player who called for a Revolt, it the Revolt succeeds.\n\n (c) Miscreant, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player\n who has at least ten Blots and has a greater number of\n Blots than any other Player, if there is such a Player. It\n shall automatically be revoked if either condition becomes\n false.\n\n (d) Maniac, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player\n submitting an Insane Proposal on which no one votes FOR.\n\n (e) Pugachev, which shall automatically be awarded to the\n player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4027 (Elysion), Jul. 19 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4079 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001'),(404596,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1922,'Amended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',990206480,'Rule 1922/1 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001'),(404597,'rcs','00000001.00000001',651,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001','Heroes','Heroes',990206480,'Rule 651/1 (Power=1)\nHeroes\n\n Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be\n awarded to those persons who gave outstanding service to Agora\n Nomic or Nomics as a whole, but who are no longer Players or\n who never were Players. No Player may Bear the Patent Title of\n Hero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 651 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001'),(404598,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1367,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001','Degrees','Degrees',990206480,'Rule 1367/6 (Power=1)\nDegrees\n\n There shall exist a subset of the Patent Titles known as\n Degrees. A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically\n made such by a Rule. A person may use a Degree with eir name\n for any official or unofficial business if and only if e\n currently Bears that Degree.\n\n Persons may come to Bear Degrees only as specified in the\n Rules. Once a person Bears a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n \"Granting a Degree\" and \"awarding a Degree\" are synonymous. A\n Player who has been awarded a Degree Bears that Degree.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001'),(404599,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1368,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999','The Legal Degrees','The Legal Degrees',990206480,'Rule 1368/2 (Power=1)\nThe Legal Degrees\n\n The following Degrees are hereby made legal:\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)\n\n Degrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule,\n with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher than\n Degrees listed earlier. The abbreviations in parentheses are not\n part of the actual Degree.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1368, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2682, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999'),(404600,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1369,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001','Theses','Theses',990206480,'Rule 1369/2 (Power=1)\nTheses\n\n A Thesis (plural: Theses) shall be an essay whose topic is any\n facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general. The topic should be\n substantially different from all other Theses previously\n approved, but this is not a requirement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1369, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001'),(404601,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1370,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','How to Get a Degree','How to Get a Degree',990206480,'Rule 1370/11 (Power=1)\nHow to Get a Degree\n\n A Degree is Granted by the operation of an instrument of\n sufficient Power specifying the Degree to be Granted, and its\n recipient. The sufficient Power required to Grant a Degree is\n determined by the Degree to be Granted. All conditions\n established by this and other Rules for the Granting of the\n named Degree must have been fulfilled before the Degree may be\n Granted.\n\n No Degree may be Granted to any recipient unless the recipient\n has published a Thesis authored by emself, along with a\n statement explicitly indicating that the Thesis is being\n submitted with the intent to qualify for a Degree. The\n Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis posted in this\n manner.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 1.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words and contains a narrative covering significant events\n which have occurred in Agora within at least the last eight\n weeks, and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power\n of at least 2.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic shall not be Granted unless the\n Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least 500 words,\n and unless the instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at\n least 2.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy shall not be Granted\n unless the Thesis submitted for that Degree contains at least\n 500 words, unless the intended recipient has also published an\n additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme\n is related to Agora or Nomic in general, and unless the\n instrument Granting the Degree has Power of at least 3.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1370, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1508, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2487, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2682, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2715, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404602,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1942,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001','Property','Property',990206480,'Rule 1942/1 (Power=1)\nProperty\n\n Any entity which the Rules permit to be possessed by another\n entity is a Property. Within the context of the Rules, the term\n \"possess\" refers to the legal status of possessing a Property;\n the terms \"possessor\" and \"owner\" are synonymous, as are\n \"possess\" and \"own\". Individual Properties may not be created\n or destroyed, or their ownership changed, except in accordance\n with the Rules.\n\n Every Property shall have a Recordkeepor, which is some Player\n who is required to retain a record of who owns that Property.\n If, for a given Property, no other Rule provides otherwise, or\n if the Rules would otherwise provide for a person who is not a\n Player, the Treasuror shall maintain this record. If one of the\n Official duties of an Officer is to be the Recordkeepor of a\n Property, then eir Report shall include this record and any\n changes thereto since the last posting of eir Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001'),(404603,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1959,'Created by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000','Wills','Wills',990206480,'Rule 1959/0 (Power=1)\nWills\n\n The Executor of a given entity may announce a Will for that\n entity, this becomes that entity\'s Will. A Will must describe\n how to distribute the entity\'s Property should the entity cease\n to have an Executor. The Notary shall keep track of all Wills.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000'),(404604,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1908,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000','Abandoned Property','Abandoned Property',990206480,'Rule 1908/3 (Power=1)\nAbandoned Property\n\n Property which is possessed by an entity which has no Executor,\n is deemed \"abandoned\".\n\n The Notary shall be a Limited Executor of any entity which\n possesses abandoned Property, and on behalf of that entity e\n may:\n\n (1) transfer Property owned by that entity to any entity to\n which the dissolute entity owes debts, for the purpose of\n making partial or complete payment on those debts;\n\n (2) forgive in part or in full any debts owed to it;\n\n (3) Without Objection, transfer Property owned by it to the\n Bank; or\n\n (4) transfer Property to satisfy the Will, provided that all\n debts for that type of Property that the entity had when it\n lost its Executor have been satisfied.\n\n If an entity which possesses property of any sort dies,\n dissolves, or otherwise ceases to exist, that entity is\n nonetheless considered to continue to exist for the purpose of\n those Rules pertaining to the possession and disposition of\n Property, for as long as it continues to possess Property.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3930 (Murphy), Oct. 17 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000'),(404605,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1981,'Created by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property',990206480,'Rule 1981/0 (Power=1)\nEmbezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property\n\n (a) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property from any entity to another entity\n commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.\n\n (b) An entity which receives Property from any entity as the\n result of an intentional, valid and unauthorized transfer\n incurs a debt to the Bank for all such Property.\n\n (c) A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of which\n e is an Executor, has incurred a debt of the type decribed\n in (b) and who does not act to satisfy that debt within in a\n week of being informed of it commits the Class 10 Crime of\n Receiving Stolen Property.\n\n (d) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized\n transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if\n and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making\n it:\n (1) knew that the transfer was valid;\n (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and\n (3) realized that e was making the transfer.\n\n (e) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property from the Bank as the result of an\n accident or mistake does not commit Embezzlement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001'),(404606,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1467,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Definition of a Currency','Definition of a Currency',990206480,'Rule 1467/7 (Power=1)\nDefinition of a Currency\n\n A Currency is a category of entities established by the Rules.\n Each instance of a Currency is a Property. Instances of a given\n Currency are fungible. The size of a single instance, or\n \"unit\", of a given Currency is its Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ).\n Individual units of a Currency cannot be divided; therefore,\n the final result of all computations involving numbers of units\n of Currency shall be rounded off to the nearest integral\n multiple of its MUQ.\n\n Unless otherwise specified, the MUQ of a Currency is one (1).\n\n Since units of Currency are fungible, it is not necessary for\n the Recordkeepor of a Currency to track the individual\n ownership of each unit; rather, it is sufficient to maintain a\n record of the total number of units possessed by each entity\n which possesses any number of units of that Currency.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1685, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Oct. 13 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1467, Oct. 27 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3894 (harvel), Aug. 16 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404607,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1579,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001','Mintors','Mintors',990206480,'Rule 1579/6 (Power=1)\nMintors\n\n Each Currency shall have associated with it a Mintor, which must\n be an entity to which the Rules grant Mint Authority. An entity\n has Mint Authority if and only if granted it by the Rules.\n\n If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, or ceases to have\n the authority to be a Mintor, then all units of that Currency\n are destroyed, and that Currency ceases to exist. The\n Recordkeepor of that Currency shall publicly announce when\n this happens.\n\n All Players have Mint Authority.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), Jun. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Aug. 30 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Rule 1579, Sep. 13 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001'),(404608,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1722,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Creation of New Currencies','Creation of New Currencies',990206480,'Rule 1722/2 (Power=1)\nCreation of New Currencies\n\n A new Currency is created when an entity which has Mint\n Authority publicly posts a message stating that e is doing so,\n provided that also e states in that message the values of all\n properties which the Rules require of Currencies. The Mintor of\n a Currency created in this way is the entity which created it,\n any specification to the contrary notwithstanding. If the\n Recordkeepor of the Currency to be created is not the Executor\n of the Mintor, the proposed Recordkeepor must first consent to\n being its Recordkeepor before the Currency is created.\n\n A Currency is destroyed when the Mintor of that Currency\n publicly states that e is doing so, unless this destruction\n would be prohibited by the Rules.\n\n The Mintor of a Currency may not destroy that Currency if that\n Currency exists by virtue of being required to exist by the\n Rules.\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency created by the procedure in this\n Rule is changed when the Mintor of that Currency announces the\n change; but if the new Recordkeepor is not the Executor of the\n Mintor, the new Recordkeepor must first consent to being made\n Recordkeepor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), Jun. 8 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404609,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1974,'Created by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Restriction on Minting of Bank Currencies by the Bank','Restriction on Minting of Bank Currencies by the Bank',990206480,'Rule 1974/0 (Power=1)\nRestriction on Minting of Bank Currencies by the Bank\n\n The Bank, by the Treasuror, may Mint new units of a Bank\n Currency only as follows:\n\n (a) Once during the thirty day period immediately following the\n registration of a new Player, a number of Stems not to\n exceed five times the Basic Officer Salary per such new\n Player, with Two Supporters;\n\n (b) In the event that the Voting Entitlement Surplus exceeds the\n Bank\'s holdings of VEs, a number of VEs not to exceed the\n difference between the Voting Entitlement Surplus and the\n Bank\'s Holdings of VEs, with Two Supporters;\n\n (c) At any time, Without Objection.\n\n The Bank may not otherwise Mint new units of a Bank Currency\n except through the mechanism set forth in this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404610,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1973,'Created by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Destruction of Currencies in Bond','Destruction of Currencies in Bond',990206480,'Rule 1973/0 (Power=1)\nDestruction of Currencies in Bond\n\n No Currency may be destroyed if there exist an unredeemed Bond\n whose face value is denominated in that Currency.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which permits the\n destruction of Currencies.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404611,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1917,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001','General Currency Taxation','General Currency Taxation',990206480,'Rule 1917/3 (Power=1)\nGeneral Currency Taxation\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency may levy a tax on that Currency,\n subject to the following restrictions:\n\n a) All elements required to be specified in the announcement\n of the levy must also be specified in the announcement of\n intent to issue the levy.\n b) The Effective Time of the levy must be between seven and\n fourteen days after the time of the announcement of the\n intent to issue the levy.\n c) The Effective Time of a levy is at least one month after the\n last Effective Time of a levy on that Currency issued under\n the authority of this Rule.\n d) The announcement of intent to issue the levy may not take\n place while another attempt to levy a tax on that Currency\n is pending under the authority of this Rule.\n e) If the Currency is a Bank Currency, then either the\n Recordkeepor is a member of the Cabinet at the time e\n levies the tax, or eir action has the support of two current\n Cabinet members.\n\n The tax may include exemptions on a fixed amount of the holdings\n of every taxable entity, provided that:\n\n (i) All Players are exempt identical amounts,\n (ii) All Non-players are exempt identical amounts,\n (iii) The Non-players\' exemption is less than or equal to the\n Players\' exemption.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3953 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001'),(404612,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1471,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial','Creation and Destruction of Units of Currency','Creation and Destruction of Units of Currency',990206480,'Rule 1471/2 (Power=1)\nCreation and Destruction of Units of Currency\n\n New units of a Currency are created when the Mintor of that\n Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that Currency a notice\n that e is creating new units of that Currency, specifying the\n number of units that e is creating. The newly created units are\n added to the Mintor\'s possessions.\n\n Units of Currency are destroyed when any entity which possesses\n units of that Currency transmits to the Recordkeepor of that\n Currency a notice that e is destroying units of that Currency,\n specifying the number of units that e is destroying. An entity\n cannot destroy more units of a Currency than e possesses,\n however. The units destroyed are removed from the possession of\n the entity performing the destruction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2619, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial'),(404613,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1941,'Created by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000','Fees','Fees',990206480,'Rule 1941/0 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n A Fee is a specific quantity of some particular Currency\n explicitly designated as such by the Rules. To Pay a Fee is\n to transfer the specified quantity of that particular Currency\n to the Bank if and only if that transfer is made solely for\n the purpose of Paying that particular instance of that Fee.\n\n If the Rules specify that a particular action is associated\n with a Fee, or that a Fee is required for a particular action,\n then the entity performing the action shall Pay the Fee either\n before performing said action (but not more than 72 hours\n beforehand) or in the same email as the action is performed,\n else the action shall not occur.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000'),(404614,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1598,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001','Property Transfers','Property Transfers',990206480,'Rule 1598/10 (Power=1)\nProperty Transfers\n\n (a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the\n intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity\n (the \"transferor\") to some other entity (the \"transferee\").\n\n (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:\n (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by\n the transferor; and\n (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a\n Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to\n execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect\n to all of the Properties involved.\n\n (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor\n receives a valid Notice of Transfer.\n\n (d) The effect of a transfer of Properties is to cause the\n transferor to cease to possess the Properties transferred,\n and simultaneously to cause the transferee to possess them.\n\n (e) The Recordkeepor of a Property shall maintain a record of\n all transfers of that Property. E shall retain a record of\n each Notice of Transfer which e receives (whether valid or\n not) involving that Property. E shall retain this record of\n each Notice of Transfer for at least four weeks after its\n receipt.\n\n (f) If the transferor transfers Property to the transferee with\n the purpose of satisfying a debt, or of paying the Fee\n associated with performing an action, but the debt does not\n exist, or the action is not successfully performed, then the\n transferor\'s Executor may publicly demand the return of the\n Property. The effect of such a demand is to cause the\n transferee to incur a debt to the transferor for the\n Property transferred.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Nov. 26 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1598, Dec. 10 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3627 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001'),(404615,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1596,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001','Debt','Debt',990206480,'Rule 1596/6 (Power=1)\nDebt\n\n (a) A \"debt\" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one\n entity (the \"debtor\") to make a transfer of one or more\n Properties to some other entity (the \"creditor\").\n\n (b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to\n inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor.\n If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted,\n the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is\n posted.\n\n (c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is\n deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the\n creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of\n multiple transfers).\n\n (d) A debt is forgiven when the creditor of a debt sends a\n notice to the debtor that e is forgiving the debt.\n Forgiveness may be for the entire debt or for any part\n thereof. The effect forgiving a debt is as if the debtor\n had made a payment on the debt for the portion forgiven,\n except that no transfer of property takes place thereby.\n\n (e) An entity which receives Property as the result of an\n unauthorized transfer incurs a debt for the transferred\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4037 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001'),(404616,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1599,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Overdue Debts','Overdue Debts',990206480,'Rule 1599/6 (Power=1)\nOverdue Debts\n\n The Executor of the creditor of any unsatisfied debt may, at\n any time, Order the debtor to satisfy that debt; but e may not\n do so if any other Order neither satisfied nor vacated exists\n requiring the same debtor to satisfy the same debt, or if the\n debt is disputed. The debtor shall have seven days to satisfy\n the debt from the time the Order is executed.\n\n Any entity Ordered to satisfy a debt who fails to do so within\n the time allowed by this Rule commits the Infraction of\n Persistent Indebtedness when that time first elapses, and\n further does so again every seven days after the time allowed\n has expired. Time during which the debt is disputed or the\n Order is stayed is not counted for the purpose of this Rule. If\n the Executor of the entity so Ordered is on Hold at the time\n the Order is issued, the time shall not begin to run until the\n Executor comes off Hold. These Infractions shall be reported by\n the creditor of the debt and carry a penalty of one Blot.\n\n No Order to satisfy a debt shall be enforced in any way after\n such time as the debt is satisfied, and the executor of any\n such Order shall vacate it as soon as the underlying debt is\n satisfied. If a debt becomes disputed, any Order to satisfy the\n disputed debt shall be stayed by its executor for the duration\n of the dispute. The Clerk of the Courts may stay, and a Judge\n stay or vacate, any Order which should properly be stayed or\n vacated (respectively) under this Rule in the event the\n executor of the Order neglects to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3604 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3851 (General Chaos), Apr. 12 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404617,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1853,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4127 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001','Levying Taxes','Levying Taxes',990206480,'Rule 1853/7 (Power=1)\nLevying Taxes\n\n Taxes may be levied only by an Officer explicitly permitted by\n the Rules to do so.\n\n An Officer levies a tax by announcing that e does so, and\n specifying:\n\n (1) The Currency being taxed.\n (2) The percentage of the tax.\n (3) Any exemptions applying to the tax.\n (4) The Rule authorizing em to levy the tax.\n\n Upon such an announcement, each taxable entity becomes liable to\n the Bank for a debt equal to the specified percentage of eir\n taxable holdings of that Currency at the time of the\n announcement. As soon as possible after this happens, the\n Recordkeepor of that Currency shall publish a report listing\n each entity\'s holdings of that Currency as of the time of the\n announcement.\n\n All entities are taxable, except for:\n\n (a) the Bank\n (b) all Rebellious Players\n (c) entities explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing the\n levy as tax-exempt for that levy\n\n All Currency holdings are taxable, except for holdings\n explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing the levy as\n tax-exempt for that levy.\n\n The percentage of the tax may not exceed 50%, unless the Rule\n authorizing the levy explicitly permits it to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3747 (Steve), May 22 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3790 (Steve), Oct. 6 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3857 (General Chaos), Apr. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4127 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001'),(404618,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1661,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4151 (Kelly), 13 May 2001','The Right of Patronage','The Right of Patronage',990206480,'Rule 1661/9 (Power=1)\nThe Right of Patronage\n\n A Speaker who is not Tainted has the Right of Patronage. This\n Right is the authority to, once a week, order the award of\n Stems from the Bank to specific Players, only as specified in\n this Rule.\n\n The Speaker exercises this right by paying out Stems to one or\n more Players, with a total of not more than one-half the Basic\n Officer Salary. The Players to receive the award must not have\n received a Patronage award within the preceding four weeks, and\n the Speaker must provide a reason along with the Notice of\n Transfer. All such Patronage Awards in a single Week must be\n posted in a single message.\n\n Such awards are only permitted to recognize acts the Speaker\n believes to be of benefit to the Agora community, acts that the\n Speaker believes to exceed the call of duty, or acts that the\n Speaker believes to be of extreme sacrifice for the good of the\n Game.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2708, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3644 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3660 (General Chaos), Jan. 17 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4033 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4151 (Kelly), 13 May 2001'),(404619,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1887,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Default Procedure for Auctions','Default Procedure for Auctions',990206480,'Rule 1887/12 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Auctions\n\n When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the following standard Auction procedure shall be\n used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be\n modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n (a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting\n bids and announcing the result of the Auction. Unless\n otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Auctioneer.\n\n (b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the\n Auction cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of Items: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical items. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of items up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number\n of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible\n value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting\n Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires\n during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing\n that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and\n the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies\n the following conditions:\n (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or\n after its end.\n (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction\n Currency.\n (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by\n publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be\n cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.\n\n (i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started,\n there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have\n passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid\n (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction\n shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or\n all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids.\n\n The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the\n Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each\n winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.\n\n Unless specified otherwise, the Auctioneer shall transfer an\n Auctioned item to the winning Bidder as soon as possible\n after the bill for that item is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404620,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1888,'Created by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999','Private Auctions','Private Auctions',990206480,'Rule 1888/0 (Power=1)\nPrivate Auctions\n\n If an Auction is designated by the rules as being Private,\n then Bids may only made by sending them privately to the\n Auctioneer. This rule takes precedence over the standard\n Auction procedure.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999'),(404621,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1470,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001','The Bank','The Bank',990206480,'Rule 1470/5 (Power=1)\nThe Bank\n\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency.\n\n (b) The Executor of the Bank is the Treasuror. Each Recordkeepor\n of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of the Bank.\n\n (c) The Executor of the Bank, and each Limited Executor, is\n authorized to transfer Property from the Bank as and when\n the Rules explicitly require or permit it. Transfers of\n Property from the Bank which are made without being\n explicitly required or permitted by the Rules are\n unauthorized.\n\n (d) Whenever the Bank incurs a debt to any other entity, the\n Bank shall, as soon as possible and by its Executor or by\n one of its Limited Executors, either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Treasuror has sole authority to forgive debts owed to\n the Bank, in whole or in part. This power may only be\n exercised:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001'),(404622,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1479,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"',990206480,'Rule 1479/3 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"\n\n Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to that\n entity for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\n Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one or\n more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the Bank for\n those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as\n possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2476, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404623,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1966,'Created by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Bonds','Bonds',990206480,'Rule 1966/0 (Power=1)\nBonds\n\n Bonds are Property. Each Bond, in addition to being a Property,\n has the following characteristics:\n (a) an issuer (which must be a Player or an entity with an\n Executor);\n (b) a face value, expressed as the positive multiple of the MUQ\n of some Currency; and\n (c) a maturity date.\n\n A species of Bond consists of all Bonds with the same issuer,\n face value and maturity date. All Bonds of a given species are\n fungible. In any transaction involving Bonds, it is sufficient\n to identify the Bonds involved by species.\n\n The Recordkeeper of Bonds shall be the Usuror.\n\n A Bond is mature on and after its maturity date, and is immature\n prior to that date. If the maturity date of a Bond is specified\n only as a date, it shall be presumed to mature at midnight UTC\n of that day (the beginning of that day).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404624,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1967,'Created by Proposal 4124 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Creation of Bonds','Creation of Bonds',990206480,'Rule 1967/0 (Power=1)\nCreation of Bonds\n\n New Bonds are created when an entity with Bond Issuance\n Authority sends a message to the Usuror stating that e is\n creating one or more new Bonds, provided that that message sets\n forth the face value and maturity date of each Bond to be\n created, and by paying the applicable Fee (if any) for creating\n those Bonds. The newly created Bonds are possessed by the\n entity sending the message. The issuer of the newly created\n Bonds is the entity sending the message.\n\n The Fee for creating Bonds shall be equal to the Basic Fee for\n issuing Bonds. However, the Fee shall only be required for the\n first Bond of a given species created in the same message; there\n is no additional fee for additional Bonds of the same species\n created in the same message. Furthermore, the Bank need never\n pay a Fee to create Bonds.\n\n This Rule defers to any Rule which imposes further restrictions\n on the ability of an entity to create new Bonds.\n\n The Bank, each Player, each Contest, and each Group all have\n Bond Issuance Authority.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4124 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404625,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1968,'Created by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Destruction of Bonds','Destruction of Bonds',990206480,'Rule 1968/0 (Power=1)\nDestruction of Bonds\n\n Any entity which possesses a Bond may destroy that Bond by\n sending a message to the Usuror identifying the Bonds to be\n destroyed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404626,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1969,'Created by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Redemption of Bonds','Redemption of Bonds',990206480,'Rule 1969/0 (Power=1)\nRedemption of Bonds\n\n Any entity which possesses an unredeemed, mature Bond may redeem\n it by transferring the Bond to its Issuer, expressing in eir\n Notice of Transfer the purpose of redeeming the Bond.\n\n When the issuer of a Bond receives an unredeemed, mature Bond\n from another entity where the transfer was executed for the\n purpose of redemption, the Bond in question is thereby redeemed,\n and the issuer incurs a debt to the transferor of that Bond for\n the face value of the bond.\n\n If the issuer of a Bond receives an unredeemed, immature Bond\n from another entity where the transfer was executed for the\n purpose of redemption, the issuer incurs a debt to the\n transferor for that Bond; but if the Bond in question matures\n while still in the possession of the issuer, this debt is\n cancelled and the issuer incurs a debt to the transferor of that\n Bond for the face value of the Bond, as if the transfer had been\n made at the time the Bond matured.\n\n Once redeemed, a Bond may not be further transferred.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404627,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1971,'Created by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Bank Issuance of Bonds','Bank Issuance of Bonds',990206480,'Rule 1971/0 (Power=1)\nBank Issuance of Bonds\n\n The Bank, by the Treasuror, may issue Bonds with two Supporters.\n The number and species of Bonds to be issued must be set forth\n at the time the Treasuror seeks Support for the action. The\n Bank may not otherwise issue Bonds except through the mechanism\n set forth in this paragraph.\n\n The Bank, by the Treasuror, may Auction Bonds Without Three\n Objections. Each Auction of Bank Bonds shall consist of some\n number of a single species of Bond. The species of Bond, the\n number of Bonds of that species, the Auction Currency, and the\n Minimum Bid of each Auction shall be determined by the Treasuror\n as part of the message indicating eir intent to hold a Bank Bond\n Auction. The Auctioneer of all Bank Bond Auctions shall be the\n Treasuror.\n\n The Bank is not required to actually possess the Bonds it\n intends to Auction at the time the intent to conduct an Auction\n is announced or at the time the Auction begins. However, if the\n Bank, by virtue of not having sufficient quantity of some\n species of Bond, is unable to satisfy a debt arising from a Bond\n Auction within seven days of when the Auction ends, the Player\n who was Treasuror at the time the Auction began commits the\n offense of Selling the Blue Sky, a Class 6 Crime.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404628,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1972,'Created by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001','Acceleration of Bonds','Acceleration of Bonds',990206480,'Rule 1972/0 (Power=1)\nAcceleration of Bonds\n\n Whenever an entity which is the issuer of one or more\n nonredeemed Bonds ceases to have an Executor, all unredeemed\n Bonds issued by that entity are accelerated as described by this\n Rule.\n\n When a Bond is accelerated, the Bond immediately becomes mature\n and is deemed to have been redeemed. The issuer becomes liable\n for a debt to the current owner of the Bond for the face value\n of the Bond.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001'),(404629,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1977,'Created by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001','Selling Bonds to the Bank','Selling Bonds to the Bank',990206480,'Rule 1977/0 (Power=1)\nSelling Bonds to the Bank\n\n A Player may sell a Bond by paying a Fee equal to that Bond,\n and informing the Usuror that e is selling the Bond.\n\n If the rules permit this sale, then Usuror shall then pay out to\n that player an amount equal to the face value of the Bond\n multiplied by the applicable purchase rate set in the Usuror\'s\n Budget. The value of the purchase rate shall be determined as at\n the time the Bond was transferred.\n\n If the rules do not permit the sale, then the Bank incurs a debt\n to the transferor for that Bond.\n\n The Bank, by the Treasuror, may redeem any mature Bonds it owns.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001'),(404630,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1978,'Created by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001','Credit and Credit Limits','Credit and Credit Limits',990206480,'Rule 1978/0 (Power=1)\nCredit and Credit Limits\n\n A Player\'s current credit is equal to the sum of the values of\n all Bonds owned by the Bank issued by that Player with a face\n value in Stems. Each Player\'s credit value shall be part of the\n Usuror\'s Weekly Report.\n\n The sale of a Bond is permitted only if it would not cause that\n Player\'s credit to exceed the Credit Limit set forth in the\n Usuror\'s Budget.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001'),(404631,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1979,'Created by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001','Treasuror\'s Moratorium on Bond Purchases','Treasuror\'s Moratorium on Bond Purchases',990206480,'Rule 1979/0 (Power=1)\nTreasuror\'s Moratorium on Bond Purchases\n\n The Treasuror may place or remove a moratorium on all bond\n purchases with Support. Once a moratorium has been placed the\n Bank may not purchase any Bonds until the veto is removed.\n\n If a moratorium is in place, the Treasuror must report this in\n eir Monthly Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001'),(404632,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1909,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','The Payroll Clerk','The Payroll Clerk',990206480,'Rule 1909/6 (Power=1)\nThe Payroll Clerk\n\n There exists the Office of Payroll Clerk, whose responsibility\n it is to be Recordkeepor for Stems and to pay out Salaries.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3935 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404633,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1910,'Amended(3) by Proposal 535 (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001','Stems','Stems',990206480,'Rule 1910/3 (Power=1)\nStems\n\n Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.\n\n Transfers of Stems are permitted only if either the transferor\n or the transferee is the Bank. All other transfers of Stems are\n prohibited.\n\n However, in the case that an Organization somehow obtains Stems,\n it shall nevertheless be allowed to transfer those to Players,\n as long as this is done within seven days of when the Stems are\n obtained.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001'),(404634,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1945,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','Voting Entitlements','Voting Entitlements',990206480,'Rule 1945/1 (Power=1)\nVoting Entitlements\n\n Voting Entitlements are a Bank Currency. The Recordkeepor of\n Voting Entitlements is the Assessor. The MUQ of Voting\n Entitlements is 0.1.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404635,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1946,'Amended(3() by Proposal 4117 (Blob), Mar. 6 2001','Distribution of Voting Entitlements','Distribution of Voting Entitlements',990206480,'Rule 1946/3 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Voting Entitlements\n\n The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is equal\n to the number of registered Players.\n\n The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is the\n total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities other\n than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting\n Entitlements owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to\n Winning Bidders in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions but not\n yet paid for.\n\n The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the\n IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL,\n the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.\n\n Whenever it occurs that the Voting Entitlement Surplus is\n positive and no Auction of Voting Entitlements is already in\n progress, the Assessor shall auction off the surplus Voting\n Entitlements. The items to be auctioned are Minimum Unit\n Quantities of of Voting Entitlements, and thus the number of\n items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus divided by the\n MUQ of VEs. The Auctioneer shall be the Assessor, and the\n Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only Politicians may bid.\n\n Upon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Voting\n Entitlement Auction, the Assessor shall pay out one Voting\n Entitlement to the debtor of the satisfied debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4058 (Peekee), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3() by Proposal 4117 (Blob), Mar. 6 2001'),(404636,'rcs','00000001.00000001',112,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999','Ways to Win and Preclusions Thereof','Ways to Win and Preclusions Thereof',990206480,'Rule 112/3 (Power=3)\nWays to Win and Preclusions Thereof\n\n Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules.\n Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be\n defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition\n defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player,\n provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at\n that time for that Player.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 112, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1268, Oct. 19 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1451, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999'),(404637,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1638,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Announcing a Win','Announcing a Win',990206480,'Rule 1638/5 (Power=1)\nAnnouncing a Win\n\n When one or more Win Conditions are true for a Player and no\n Win-Preventing Conditions are, e is eligible to Win. Any Player\n may then publish a Notice of Victory containing the following\n information:\n\n a) The fact that one or more Players are eligible to Win\n b) The cause of the Win\n c) The identity of every Player who is eligible to Win at\n the time the message is sent\n\n If and only if the information contained in the Notice of\n Victory is accurate, the Player or Players who are identified\n as being eligible to Win immediately Win the Game.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2616, Jun. 1 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4019 (t), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404638,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1931,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001','Winners\' Stipend','Winners\' Stipend',990206480,'Rule 1931/2 (Power=1)\nWinners\' Stipend\n\n When a Win occurs, all persons Bearing the Patent Title of\n Current Champion shall have that Patent Title revoked but shall\n have the Patent Title of Champion awarded to them instead.\n Immediately afterwards, whichever Player Won the Game (or\n Players, should multiple Players have Won the Game\n simultaneously) shall be awarded the Patent Title of Current\n Champion.\n\n At the beginning of each month, the Payroll Clerk shall pay\n out the Winner\'s Stipend to each Player that has Borne the\n Patent Title Current Champion for a total of at least 12\n days in the preceding month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001'),(404639,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1928,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000','The Scorekeepor','The Scorekeepor',990206480,'Rule 1928/2 (Power=1)\nThe Scorekeepor\n\n There exists the Office of Scorekeepor, whose responsibility it\n is to keep track of Scores.\n\n The Scorekeepor\'s Report includes the Score of each current\n Player, as well as any changes thereto since the last posting\n of the Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000'),(404640,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1929,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001','Points','Points',990206480,'Rule 1929/3 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness,\n measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an\n integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since\n the last Win has a Score of zero Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)\n or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said\n event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the\n Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in\n the affected Player\'s Score.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first such notification for that specific\n event\n\n Having a Score of 200 Points or more is a Win Condition. If at\n any time a Player Wins the Game, all Player\'s Scores shall\n instantly be set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Propsoal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001'),(404641,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1930,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001','Scoring','Scoring',990206480,'Rule 1930/2 (Power=1)\nScoring\n\n If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime, e may be Penalized\n a number of Points equal to the Class of the Crime times 2.\n\n If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded\n 10 Points.\n\n If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized\n 5 Points.\n\n If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded\n 15 Points.\n\n If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized\n 10 Points.\n\n If a Player submits a Proposal which is Adopted, e may be\n Awarded a number of Points equal to twice the number of\n AGAINST Votes cast on that Proposal.\n\n If a Player submits an Insane Proposal which is Adopted,\n e may be Awarded 5 Points, in addition to any other Awards\n for that particular Proposal.\n\n If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST\n a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may\n be Awarded 2 Points.\n\n If a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Awarded 5 Points\n\n If a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Penalized 5 Points.\n\n If a Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during\n the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.\n\n If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e may\n be Awarded 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4113 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001'),(404642,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1435,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','Definition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate','Definition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate',990206480,'Rule 1435/14 (Power=1)\nDefinition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate\n\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ)\n of Indulgences is 0.1. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is the\n Herald.\n\n A Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.\n\n Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some\n number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or\n assessment to the Herald, then, as soon as possible after\n receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record an\n increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready,\n of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in\n the number of Blots staining the affected Player.\n\n Blots are expunged from a Player\'s record when:\n (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences,\n specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is\n for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a\n number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences\n transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all\n of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred\n than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned\n to the transferor); or\n (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots\n are to be expunged, provided that such method must include\n a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement\n and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.\n\n A player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be\n Immaculate.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1457, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3569 (Zefram), Oct. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), Feb. 15 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4003 (t), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404643,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1962,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001','Win by Blots','Win by Blots',990206480,'Rule 1962/1 (Power=1)\nWin by Blots\n\n Being the only Immaculate Player is a Win Condition. Upon the\n report of such a Win, the Herald shall expunge N Blots per\n Player, where N is the number of Blots on the\n Player(s) with the least nonzero number of Blots.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001'),(404644,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1712,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',990206480,'Rule 1712/9 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by\n Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall Auction a number of Indulgences equal to the difference\n between the AICL and the IICL. If the AICL is equal to or\n greater than the IICL, no auction shall be held. To calculate\n the difference, the Herald shall determine the number of Blots\n and the number of Indulgences owned as published in the most\n recent Herald\'s Report; other values in the formula shall be\n determined as of the time of the start of the auction.\n However, if the Herald makes an error in determining the\n number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that\n number shall be allowed to stand.\n\n The items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus\n the number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction\n shall be conducted in Stems. Only Acolytes may bid.\n\n Upon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Indulgence\n Auction, the Herald shall pay out one Indulgence to the debtor\n of the satisfied debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000'),(404645,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1714,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4136 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001','Lawlessness','Lawlessness',990206480,'Rule 1714/7 (Power=1)\nLawlessness\n\n A Player is Lawless if more than 20 Blots stain eir record.\n\n Any Player may at any time publicly allege that another Player\n is Lawless. If the allegation is incorrect, the Player who made\n the allegation commits the Class 15 Crime of Persecution.\n Otherwise, the following events occur in order:\n\n (i) if the Lawless Player is the Speaker, the Speaker-Elect\n immediately becomes Speaker, and the Lawless Player\n ceases to be Speaker;\n\n (ii) the Lawless Player is removed from any Offices e holds;\n and\n\n (iii) the Lawless Player is deregistered.\n\n If a Player is deregistered according to the provisions of this\n Rule, e may not register again until a month has passed from eir\n deregistration.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would prohibit a\n Lawless Player from being deregistered.\n\n[CFJ 1059: Rule 1714 should be interpreted such that an allegation of\n Lawlessness sent to the PF must contain an explicit declaration that\n a particular Player is Lawless.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3577 (Zefram), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4136 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001'),(404646,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1747,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Pardoning Lawlessness','Pardoning Lawlessness',990206480,'Rule 1747/4 (Power=1)\nPardoning Lawlessness\n\n The Clerk of the Courts has the power to Pardon Fugitives from\n Justice that have been deregistered for Lawlessness. The Clerk\n may not exercise this power more than once per Nomic month, and\n may not Pardon the same person twice in a given term of Office\n (although, if re-elected later, e may again Pardon that person).\n The Clerk of the Courts Pardons a Fugitive from Justice by\n publicly announcing e is doing so. Then the following events\n shall occur:\n\n i) The Clerk of the Courts shall expunge as many of the Blots\n staining the Fugitive\'s record as required to reduce the\n number of Blots to one less than the threshold for\n Lawlessness and notify the Herald of this action.\n\n ii) After the above step has been completed, the Fugitive may\n reregister as a Player.\n\n iii) The Pardoned Player shall then publish a Formal Apology\n for eir Lawlessness. The CotC may include a list of up to\n ten Prescribed Words in eir Pardon.\n\n iv) For three months after being Pardoned, the Pardoned Player\n may only use Indulgences to expunge Blots from eir record\n and may not transfer any Indulgences for any other\n purpose.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule governing Lawlessness,\n or when a deregistered Player may reregister.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3586 (Vlad), Nov. 14 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3931 (Crito), Oct. 17 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4038 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404647,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1439,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999','Blots Due to a CFJ','Blots Due to a CFJ',990206480,'Rule 1439/8 (Power=1)\nBlots Due to a CFJ\n\n If a Call For Judgement (CFJ) clearly alleging that a Player has\n violated a specific Rule is found to be TRUE, the Player\n receives Blots equal to the Power of the violated Rule rounded\n down to the nearest whole integer, or four Blots if its\n Power exceeds four, unless the violated Rule explicitly defines\n or forbids a Blot penalty in the case of a CFJ. The penalty\n shall be as defined in the Rule, if the Rule defines it; no Blot\n penalty shall be imposed if the Rule forbids it.\n\n The Player who initially called for the CFJ shall notify the\n Herald of the Blot assessment.\n\n If such a Judgement is overturned upon appeal, then the Player\n who received Blots shall expunge the Blots that were given due\n to the initial Judgement of the CFJ and notify the Herald of\n this action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1460, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1674, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2879 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic,\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823, (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999'),(404648,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1437,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999','Fugitives from Justice','Fugitives from Justice',990206480,'Rule 1437/5 (Power=1)\nFugitives from Justice\n\n When a Player is deregistered from the game while not\n Immaculate, e becomes a Fugitive from Justice. The Herald\n shall continue to keep a record of the number Blots staining\n each Fugitive from Justice.\n\n At the beginning of each month, the Herald shall halve the\n number of Blots staining each Fugitive of Justice, rounding\n down; but no Fugitive from Justice shall have eir number of\n Blots reduced to less than one by this method.\n\n When a Fugitive from Justice reregisters, e ceases to be a\n Fugitive from Justice. The act of reregistration causes\n no change in eir number of Blots.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1458, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2789 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999'),(404649,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1924,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4118 (Goethe), Mar. 6 2001','Living Twice Shall Have Its Price','Living Twice Shall Have Its Price',990206480,'Rule 1924/3 (Power=1)\nLiving Twice Shall Have Its Price\n\n O Agorans! Please hear my claim:\n A dark injustice mars our game.\n Though politics should not be easy\n For Zombie Masters life is breezy.\n The ordinary Player\'s stressed,\n The Zombie Master\'s triply bless\'d\n With extra votes, and extra Roles\n And Stems enough to buy mink stoles.\n With all these perks, it seems they oughtta\n Pay more than one Indulgence per Quarter.\n\n And so, henceforth, for justices\' sake,\n Let them this payment monthly make.\n The Registrar, who keeps our lists,\n For every Zombie that exists,\n Shall, at the end of each month passed, a\n Lone Indulgence bill the Master.\n And should this Upkeep be not paid\n Asap, the Master\'s disobeyed\n This Rule, and makes a wretched journey,\n Loses the Power of Attorney\n O\'er that Zombie. More disaster!\n The Registrar shall bill the Master\n For the Zombie - but forgive\n The Upkeep debt, and thusly shrive\n The Master. That\'s the heavy price\n That must be paid for living twice.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4039 (Elysion), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4118 (Goethe), Mar. 6 2001'),(404650,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1647,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000','The Speaker-Elect','The Speaker-Elect',990206480,'Rule 1647/7 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker-Elect\n\n There exists the Office of Speaker-Elect, whose responsibility\n it is to be the Speaker\'s successor.\n\n Whenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be\n Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of\n Speaker-Elect.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar cannot Nominate for the\n Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the\n Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the\n Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as\n defined by other Rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the\n characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2681, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000'),(404651,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1648,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000','When the Speaker Is Tainted','When the Speaker Is Tainted',990206480,'Rule 1648/4 (Power=1)\nWhen the Speaker Is Tainted\n\n If the Rules require that a Speaker Transition occur, and there\n is no Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the\n Transition proceeds as set out in other Rules, but the new\n Speaker is Tainted.\n\n A Tainted Speaker remains Speaker only until there is an Electee\n to the Office of Speaker-Elect, at which point, a Speaker\n Transition occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Sep. 22 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000'),(404652,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1658,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Tainting the Speaker','Tainting the Speaker',990206480,'Rule 1658/4 (Power=1)\nTainting the Speaker\n\n A Speaker shall become Tainted when a Referendum calling for the\n Tainting of the Speaker passes. Any Active Player is authorized\n to call such a Referendum at any time, by publicly requesting\n such.\n\n This Referendum must name the offending Speaker, and if that\n Player is Speaker upon passage of this Referendum, that Speaker\n is Tainted.\n\n For this Referendum the default procedure for Referenda is\n modified as follows:\n\n * The Vote Collector is the Registrar\n * Voters do not include the Speaker.\n * The Adoption Index is 2.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2699, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404653,'rcs','00000001.00000001',681,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Giving Up Speakership','Giving Up Speakership',990206480,'Rule 681/11 (Power=1)\nGiving Up Speakership\n\n If the Speaker publicly announces that e is giving up the\n Speakership voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2 Infraction of\n Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker Transition occurs.\n This Infraction is to be reported by the new Speaker once the\n Transition is complete.\n\n When a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this\n manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of\n Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the\n start of the next quarter, whichever is longest.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 681 (KoJen), ca. Oct. 29 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1423, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1695, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404654,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1375,'Amended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Speaker Going On Hold','Speaker Going On Hold',990206480,'Rule 1375/7 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Going On Hold\n\n A Speaker who goes On Hold while e is still Speaker commits the\n Class 10 Crime of Speaker Inactivity.\n\n If the Speaker is On Hold, a Speaker Transition occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1375, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1428, Feb. 5 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404655,'rcs','00000001.00000001',786,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001','Order of Succession for Speaker-Elect','Order of Succession for Speaker-Elect',990206480,'Rule 786/13 (Power=1)\nOrder of Succession for Speaker-Elect\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to\n the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be:\n\n the Promotor\n the Registrar\n the Rulekeepor\n the Assessor\n the Justiciar\n the Clerk of the Courts\n all Officers in order of most recent registration\n all Active Players in order of most recent registration\n\n except that neither the Speaker nor any Unready Player appears\n in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time\n the Office is to be filled.\n\n If there is ever no Electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the\n Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order\n of succession who has not publicly declined since there was last\n an Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If there is only one\n Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined,\n that Player may not decline.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 786 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1426, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1539, Apr. 4 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2500, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2828 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4049 (Elysion), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001'),(404656,'rcs','00000001.00000001',402,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Speaker Transition','Speaker Transition',990206480,'Rule 402/9 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Transition\n\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences,\n the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall publish a Notice of\n Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition\n and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time\n the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404657,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1581,'Amended(3) by Proposal 3703, Mar. 9 1998','Quarterly Speaker Change','Quarterly Speaker Change',990206480,'Rule 1581/3 (Power=1)\nQuarterly Speaker Change\n\n A Speaker Transition occurs upon the commencement of each\n new quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2471, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3703, Mar. 9 1998'),(404658,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1588,'Created by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996','Subordinate Legal Codes','Subordinate Legal Codes',990206480,'Rule 1588/0 (Power=1)\nSubordinate Legal Codes\n\n A Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) is a body of law organized under\n the Rules. A body of law is a SLC only if it is granted that\n status by the Rules and it meets all other requirements in the\n Rules for being a SLC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996'),(404659,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1595,'Created by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996','Precedence of SLCs','Precedence of SLCs',990206480,'Rule 1595/0 (Power=1)\nPrecedence of SLCs\n\n Unless otherwise specified by the Rules, older SLCs take\n precedence over younger ones. This ordering is based on the\n time the SLC is first created.\n\n This Rule does not in any way establish an order of precedence\n for the components, if any, within a given SLC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996'),(404660,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1591,'Created by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996','Jurisdiction of SLCs','Jurisdiction of SLCs',990206480,'Rule 1591/0 (Power=1)\nJurisdiction of SLCs\n\n A SLC has the power to constrain the actions of Players in\n the same manner as the Rules. However, a SLC has power over\n only those Players within its Jurisdiction, as defined in the\n Rules authorizing that SLC.\n\n The Jurisdiction of a SLC must be specified by the Rules,\n either directly or indirectly. If the Jurisdiction of a SLC\n might vary over the course of the existence of the SLC, the\n Rules must specify a Player who is required to maintain a record\n of which Players are within the Jurisdiction of that SLC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996'),(404661,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1594,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999','Violation of SLCs','Violation of SLCs',990206480,'Rule 1594/1 (Power=1)\nViolation of SLCs\n\n A Player who is within the Jurisdiction of a SLC is required to\n abide by it while e remains within its Jurisdiction, unless\n doing so would violate either the Rules or another SLC with\n higher precedence.\n\n A Player who fails to abide by a SLC is in violation of that\n SLC. A Player who is found by a CFJ to have violated a SLC\n shall suffer whatever penalties specified in the Rules\n authorizing the violated SLC, or, if there is no such penalty\n specified, a default penalty of one Blot, to be reported by\n the Judge of the CFJ.\n\n There shall be no additional penalty imposed upon a Player who\n violates this Rule by violating a SLC; this Rule takes\n precedence over any Rule which specifies penalties for violating\n Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999'),(404662,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1457,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999','Judicial Procedure for Violations of an SLC','Judicial Procedure for Violations of an SLC',990206480,'Rule 1457/11 (Power=1)\nJudicial Procedure for Violations of an SLC\n\n When any Player believes that a Subordinate Legal Code (SLC) has\n been violated by a Player within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction e shall\n inform the Maintainer of that SLC of that belief, along with the\n nature of the violation, the violated text of the SLC, and the\n identity of the violating Player. The Maintainer shall then, as\n soon as possible, distribute this information to all Players\n within the Jurisdiction of the violated SLC.\n\n If, within 72 hours of this distribution, no Player within the\n SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim, the Maintainer shall\n declare the SLC violated. The Maintainer is then allowed to\n initiate any corrections and penalties allowed by the Rules and\n the violated SLC.\n\n If any Player under the SLC\'s Jurisdiction disputes the claim\n of violation within 72 hours, then any Player may submit a Call\n for Judgement, alleging that a specific Player has violated the\n SLC. Such a CFJ cannot be made in any other circumstance.\n\n All Players within the SLC\'s Jurisdiction are automatically\n ineligible to Judge such a CFJ.\n\n Whenever such a CFJ is found TRUE, the SLC has been violated and\n the SLC\'s Maintainer shall perform the same duties as when no\n Player contests the claim. If such a TRUE Judgement is\n overturned on Appeal, those actions shall be reversed to the\n extent possible immediately upon the resolution of the appeal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1697, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2745 (Swann), Nov. 18 1996, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999'),(404663,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1590,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999','Maintainer of SLCs','Maintainer of SLCs',990206480,'Rule 1590/2 (Power=1)\nMaintainer of SLCs\n\n For a SLC to be legally authorized, the Rules must specify a\n Player who is required to maintain a record of the content of\n that SLC; this Player is known as the Maintainer of that SLC.\n\n The Maintainer of a given SLC must provide a copy of it to any\n other Player who requests it, as soon as possible after the\n request is made. If the SLC has changed between the time of the\n request and the time the Maintainer fulfills the request, the\n Maintainer must provide the SLC as it existed at the time of the\n request and must additionally document every change made to the\n SLC between the time of the request and the time of its\n fulfillment.\n\n The Maintainer of an SLC must also provide an updated copy of\n the SLC to all Players within its Jurisdiction as soon as\n possible after the SLC changes for any reason.\n\n[CFJ 860: It is sufficient for the Rules to name an Officer as\n Maintainer of an SLC.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2575, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999'),(404664,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1589,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial','Modification of SLCs','Modification of SLCs',990206480,'Rule 1589/2 (Power=1)\nModification of SLCs\n\n A SLC shall not be changed except in accordance with the Rules.\n Notwithstanding any other method which may be defined, a SLC may\n always be changed by the operation of an instrument of Power 1\n or greater.\n\n A SLC is permitted to define its own mechanisms for changing its\n own content, and any change to a SLC adopted in accordance with\n its own mechanisms is legal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial'),(404665,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1592,'Created by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996','Authority of SLCs to Change Properties','Authority of SLCs to Change Properties',990206480,'Rule 1592/0 (Power=1)\nAuthority of SLCs to Change Properties\n\n A SLC has the power to define the manner in which certain\n properties of entities are changed. This power shall be limited\n to any property solely defined by that SLC and to any other\n property to which the Rules grant that SLC this authority.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996'),(404666,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1528,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999','Organizations','Organizations',990206480,'Rule 1528/6 (Power=1)\nOrganizations\n\n There are entities known as Organizations. An entity is only an\n Organization when specifically designated as such by the Rules.\n Each Organizations consists of the following elements:\n\n i) An associated SLC.\n ii) A set of Players under the Jurisdiction of the associated\n SLC.\n iii) A Name that is unique to that Organization.\n\n No Organization exists that is not of a class of Organization\n that is defined in the Rules. The class of an Organization is\n specified when it is formed, and can not change thereafter. If\n a class of Organization ever becomes undefined in the Rules,\n then all Organizations of that class are immediately dissolved.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999'),(404667,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1614,'Amended(6) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000','Organizations\' Names','Organizations\' Names',990206480,'Rule 1614/6 (Power=1)\nOrganizations\' Names\n\n Each Organization shall have a unique name. No action is\n permitted that would allow either a nameless Organization to\n exist.\n\n The Name of an Organization shall only be changed as specified\n by its SLC, or as specified in the Rules. If no other procedure\n is specified, the Name of any Organization shall change with the\n unanimous consent of all Players within the Jurisdiction of that\n Organization\'s SLC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000'),(404668,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1612,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996','Organizations\' SLCs','Organizations\' SLCs',990206480,'Rule 1612/1 (Power=1)\nOrganizations\' SLCs\n\n Unless otherwise specified in an Organization\'s SLC, that SLC\n can be changed by the unanimous consent of all the Players\n within the SLCs Jurisdiction.\n\n The Jurisdiction of an Organization\'s SLC is permitted to vary\n over the period of its existence. The SLC of an Organization\n ceases to exist when the Organization ceases to exist.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996'),(404669,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1531,'Amended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999','Administrators and Their Duties','Administrators and Their Duties',990206480,'Rule 1531/8 (Power=1)\nAdministrators and Their Duties\n\n The Administrator of an Organization shall be within the\n Jurisdiction of that Organization\'s SLC, be the Maintainer\n of the Organization\'s SLC, and be the Executor of that\n Organization.\n\n The Administrator shall inform the Notary of the following\n changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the\n nature of the change:\n\n i) The Name of the Organization changes.\n ii) The Administrator of the Organization changes.\n iii) The Executor of the Organization changes.\n iv) The Maintainer of the Organization\'s SLC changes.\n v) The Jurisdiction of the Organization\'s SLC changes.\n vi) The Organization undergoes a Voluntary Dissolution.\n\n The Administrator also shall be the Player required to maintain\n a record of the Players within the Jurisdiction of the\n Organization\'s SLC.\n\n Rules governing specific classes of Organizations may specify\n different duties for the Administrator.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jul. 20 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1531, Aug. 3 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999'),(404670,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1533,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Application to Create an Organization','Application to Create an Organization',990206480,'Rule 1533/11 (Power=1)\nApplication to Create an Organization\n\n There is a type of Application called an Application to Create\n an Organization (ACO). A valid ACO, in order to have effect\n upon Execution, must include the following:\n\n i) A defined class for the prospective Organization.\n ii) A unique Name for the prospective Organization.\n iii) An SLC for the prospective Organization.\n iv) All additional information required by the Rules governing\n the class of the prospective Organization.\n v) The signatures of at least as many distinct Players as\n required by the Rules governing the class of the\n prospective Organization, (minimum one) all of whom must be\n eligible to be members of the prospective Organization.\n\n A valid ACO is Executed by submitting it to the Notary or by\n publishing it.\n\n The effect of Executing a valid ACO is to create the prospective\n Organization, with the signatories as its Foundors. The\n Foundors then come under the Jurisdiction of that Organization\'s\n SLC.\n\n An ACO shall only be valid if its contents are not in conflict\n with this or other Rules. An ACO that is not valid shall never\n be Executed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2035, Dec. 4 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, May 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2633, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Aug. 24 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1533, Sep. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404671,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1397,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000','Dissolution of Organizations','Dissolution of Organizations',990206480,'Rule 1397/6 (Power=1)\nDissolution of Organizations\n\n An Organization shall be dissolved only when the Rules or the\n Organization\'s SLC requires it. An Organization shall be\n required to be dissolved whenever any of the following\n conditions is true:\n\n (i) the Jurisdiction of its SLC becomes empty, and there is\n no provision for this to change;\n\n (ii) the continued existence of the Organization would require\n that the Organization not have all of a legal\n Administrator, a legal Executor, and a legal Maintainer\n for its SLC; or\n\n (iii) the SLC of the Organization requires the Organization to\n dissolve.\n\n Requirement to dissolve by condition (iii) is Voluntary. Any\n other requirement to dissolve is Administrative.\n\n The Notary shall detect when an Administrative Dissolution takes\n place.\n\n Each Organization ceases to exist upon its dissolution. Other\n Rules may require an Organization to dissolve under other\n circumstances.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1397, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1687, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000'),(404672,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1617,'Amended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996','Changing the Jurisdiction of an Organization\'s SLC','Changing the Jurisdiction of an Organization\'s SLC',990206480,'Rule 1617/1 (Power=1)\nChanging the Jurisdiction of an Organization\'s SLC\n\n The Jurisdiction of an Organization\'s SLC shall only be changed\n in accordance with that SLC and with the Rules. If there are no\n provisions for changing such an SLC, then the SLC can not be\n changed.\n\n No Player shall ever be made part of the Jurisdiction of the SLC\n of any Organization without eir consent. This takes precedence\n over any Rule that would permit a Player to be involuntarily\n made part of the Jurisdiction of such a SLC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996'),(404673,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1458,'Amended(10) by Propoal 01-002 (Blob), Feb. 2 2001','The Notary','The Notary',990206480,'Rule 1458/10 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n There exists the Office of Notary, whose responsibility it is to\n maintain a Record of Organizations and their Jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Report shall include the following information\n for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution\n of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If\n an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the\n above information for that Organization.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2810 (Blob), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Oct. 12 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1458, Oct. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(10) by Propoal 01-002 (Blob), Feb. 2 2001'),(404674,'rcs','00000001.00000001',766,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4153 (Michael), 13 May 2001','Groups','Groups',990206480,'Rule 766/15 (Power=1)\nGroups\n\n A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its\n Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group\'s\n Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of\n Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership.\n\n A Group\'s Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member\n of any other Group. Initially, the Group\'s Membership must\n contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the\n Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group;\n if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves.\n\n Each Group has Mint Authority.\n\n A Group\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows:\n\n (a) A Group containing fewer than three members: zero;\n (b) A Group containing at least three members: the number of\n Players divided by the number of Groups with at least\n three members, rounded down.\n\n[CFJ 816: There may exist more than one Group.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 766 (Waggie), ca. Dec. 8 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1415, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2035, Dec. 4 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2563, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2725 (Swann), Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), Jun. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3606 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4153 (Michael), 13 May 2001'),(404675,'rcs','00000001.00000001',716,'Amended(6) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996','How to Form a Group','How to Form a Group',990206480,'Rule 716/6 (Power=1)\nHow to Form a Group\n\n An ACO that attempts to form a Group must contain, in addition\n to any information required elsewhere, a specification of the\n prospective initial Ordinancekeepor and Vizier of the Group to\n be created. Further, an Application to Create a Group is\n invalid, and has no effect if Executed, if any of its\n signatories is a Member of another Group at the time of its\n Execution.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 716 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1680, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2653, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2634, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996'),(404676,'rcs','00000001.00000001',719,'Amended(2) by Proposal 2563, Apr. 6 1996','Joining a Group','Joining a Group',990206480,'Rule 719/2 (Power=1)\nJoining a Group\n\n A Player shall be added to the Membership of a Group only when:\n\n a) the Player to be added is not already a Member of another\n Group;\n b) the Player to be added has sent the Vizier of the Group in\n question a message requesting to be added to the Membership\n of that Group; and\n c) the addition of that Player to that Group\'s Membership is\n otherwise permitted by that Group\'s Ordinances and the Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 719 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2563, Apr. 6 1996'),(404677,'rcs','00000001.00000001',721,'Amended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999','The Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor','The Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor',990206480,'Rule 721/9 (Power=1)\nThe Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor\n\n The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that\n Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Vizier shall be\n the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group, if e is\n still a Member of that Group. If the Group was not created by\n the Execution of an ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever was the\n Vizier of that Group when it was first created.\n\n If the Vizier thus specified is not a Member of the Group, the\n Group shall be dissolved.\n\n Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the\n Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 721 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2563, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2633, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Jun. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Rule 721, Jun. 22 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3608 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999'),(404678,'rcs','00000001.00000001',718,'Amended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial','Resignation from a Group','Resignation from a Group',990206480,'Rule 718/5 (Power=1)\nResignation from a Group\n\n A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the\n Jurisdiction of that Group\'s Ordinances when that Player sends a\n message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating\n that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group\n are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a\n message.\n\n This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being\n removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group\'s Ordinances by other\n means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 718 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2563, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 28 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial'),(404679,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1980,'Created by Proposal 4146 (Goethe), Apr. 22 2001','Becoming Parliamentary','Becoming Parliamentary',990206480,'Rule 1980/0 (Power=1)\nBecoming Parliamentary\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, a Group becomes a\n Parliamentary Group (P-Group) if its Vizier posts such intent\n to the Public Forum, provided at least two of its Members are\n not in eir Grace Period, and either: (a) the Group has been\n in existence for one month and has cast one legal Democratic\n Vote; or (b) the Group was formed prior to May 1, 2001.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4146 (Goethe), Apr. 22 2001'),(404680,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1446,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Contests','Contests',990206480,'Rule 1446/14 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC\n called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest\n is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within\n the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster,\n are its Contestants.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be published to have effect.\n\n Each Contest has Mint Authority.\n\n[CFJ 760: If the Regulations specify that the position of\n Contestmaster is to be vacated, that is without effect.\n CFJ 800: A Contest need not be a game in the strict sense of the\n word.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1509, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1574, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1670, Aug. 18 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2401, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2562, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2584, May 1 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), Jun. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404681,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1539,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Regulations and Membership of Contests','Regulations and Membership of Contests',990206480,'Rule 1539/2 (Power=1)\nRegulations and Membership of Contests\n\n No Player within Jurisdiction of a Contest\'s Regulations is\n bound to obey any Regulation or combination of Regulations that\n conflict with the Rules.\n\n The Regulations can specify the following:\n\n i) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become\n Contestmaster without eir consent. If left unspecified,\n the Contestmaster cannot change while the Contest exists.\n ii) How the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent. If\n this is not specified, they may only be spent when the\n Rules require it.\n iii) The amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of\n units of any specific Currency.\n iv) Additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants,\n and conditions under which Contestants cease to be\n Contestants.\n\n A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and\n paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A\n Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the\n Contestmaster. A Contestmaster may publicly resign at any time,\n at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404682,'rcs','00000001.00000001',1377,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001','The Herald','The Herald',990206480,'Rule 1377/14 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n There exists the Office of Herald, whose responsibility it is to\n keep track of Blots and to be the Recordkeepor of Indulgences.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player\n and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001'),(404683,'rcs','00000001.00000002',1596,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001','Debt','Debt',990537268,'Rule 1596/6 (Power=1)\nDebt\n\n (a) A \"debt\" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one\n entity (the \"debtor\") to make a transfer of one or more\n Properties to some other entity (the \"creditor\").\n\n (b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to\n inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor.\n If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted,\n the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is\n posted.\n\n (c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is\n deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the\n creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of\n multiple transfers).\n\n (d) A debt is forgiven when the creditor of a debt sends a\n notice to the debtor that e is forgiving the debt.\n Forgiveness may be for the entire debt or for any part\n thereof. The effect forgiving a debt is as if the debtor\n had made a payment on the debt for the portion forgiven,\n except that no transfer of property takes place thereby.\n\n (e) An entity which receives Property as the result of an\n unauthorized transfer incurs a debt for the transferred\n Property to the entity that made the transfer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4037 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001'),(404684,'rcs','00000001.00000003',1564,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',990537711,'Rule 1564/10 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The Judgement entered in any CFJ by its Judge, the grant or\n denial of any Motion, and the execution of any Judicial Order\n are all subject to review on appeal to a Board of Appeal. In\n addition, a Board of Appeal shall review any claim that a Judge\n has failed to perform any duty of a Judicial nature which e was\n required to perform.\n\n In all cases, the public insistence of any three Players is\n sufficient to initiate the appeal of a particular matter. In\n the case of the appeal of a Judicial Order, the insistence of\n any Player bound by the Order is sufficient. In the case of a\n Judgement which convicts a Player of a Crime, the insistence of\n the convicted Player is sufficient.\n\n In each cases before a Board of Appeal, it shall collectively\n decide whether to affirm or to reverse the matter under appeal,\n and shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are necessary to\n enforce its determination.\n\nCFJ 1273 (Judged TRUE, 8 Mar 2001): The Dimissal of a CFJ may be\n appealed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404685,'rcs','00000001.00000004',1564,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',990538321,'Rule 1564/10 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The Judgement entered in any CFJ by its Judge, the grant or\n denial of any Motion, and the execution of any Judicial Order\n are all subject to review on appeal to a Board of Appeal. In\n addition, a Board of Appeal shall review any claim that a Judge\n has failed to perform any duty of a Judicial nature which e was\n required to perform.\n\n In all cases, the public insistence of any three Players is\n sufficient to initiate the appeal of a particular matter. In\n the case of the appeal of a Judicial Order, the insistence of\n any Player bound by the Order is sufficient. In the case of a\n Judgement which convicts a Player of a Crime, the insistence of\n the convicted Player is sufficient.\n\n In each cases before a Board of Appeal, it shall collectively\n decide whether to affirm or to reverse the matter under appeal,\n and shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are necessary to\n enforce its determination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001'),(404686,'rcs','00000001.00000007',1727,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',992008143,'Rule 1727/10 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June\n 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by First\n Speaker Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think\n we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules\n are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was\n played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its official\n name of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the\n hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent\n advice of Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as close as practical to Agora\'s\n Birthday (June 30 at 00:04:30 GMT+1200), the Payroll Clerk\n shall transfer 50 Stems from the Bank to each Player;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Payroll Clerk shall transfer\n 25 Stems from the Bank to each Player who, during Agora\'s\n Birthday, publicly recognizes Agora\'s Birthday; but no Player\n shall receive more than one such transfer during each year\'s\n Birthday Celebration.\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary may select up to three\n Contests, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have as their\n purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and\n which Contests, in the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of\n recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to the\n Contestmaster of each such Contest 100 Stems;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on\n Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not\n publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of\n Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the\n Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge,\n Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit\n an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do\n take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this\n Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001'),(404687,'rcs','00000001.00000007',1726,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001','The Guillotine','The Guillotine',992008143,'Rule 1726/1 (Power=1)\nThe Guillotine\n\n There is a type of Application known as a Guillotine\n Application. Such an Application is submitted by submitting it\n to the Assessor. A Guillotine Application may specify when it\n is to take effect; if it does not do so, or specifies a time\n prior to its submission, it takes effect when submitted. For a\n Guillotine Application to take effect:\n\n * it must state that it is a Guillotine Application;\n\n * it must clearly identify exactly one Proposal to which it\n applies;\n\n * that Proposal\'s Voting Period must be in progress;\n\n * the ratio of the number of Active Senators whose signatures it\n bears to the number of Active Senators whose signatures it\n does not bear must exceed the Adoption Index of the Proposal;\n and\n\n * it must bear the signatures of at least two Senators.\n\n When a Guillotine Application takes effect, the Voting Period\n of the Proposal to which it applies immediately ends. This Rule\n takes precedence over all other Rules governing the Voting\n Period of Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3512 (Zefram), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001'),(404688,'rcs','00000001.00000007',1965,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4161 (Steve), 5 June 2001','Complacent Oligarchy','Complacent Oligarchy',992008143,'Rule 1965/1 (Power=2)\nComplacent Oligarchy\n\n As soon as possible after an Ordinary Proposal fails Quorum, the\n Assessor shall publish a Notice of Complacency to that effect.\n\n Publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency results\n in a copy of the Proposal being added to the Proposal Pool. This\n new Proposal is Democratic and Distributable, and is deemed to\n have been submitted by the entity that submitted the Ordinary\n Proposal.\n\n If an Ordinary Proposal has achieved Quorum, publication by the\n Assessor of a Notice of Complacency for that Proposal is the\n Class 2 Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4161 (Steve), 5 June 2001'),(404689,'rcs','00000001.00000007',1626,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001','Applications','Applications',992008143,'Rule 1626/4 (Power=1)\nApplications\n\n An Application is any document which has been clearly labeled as\n an Application and which has been submitted as an Application by\n some person. That person is known as the Application\'s Sponsor.\n\n The Sponsor of an Application may attach the signatures of other\n persons, or signatories, to the Application at the time e\n submits it. The Sponsor may not attach any signature to an\n Application without first having obtained the explicit consent\n of the signatory. A signatory may revoke eir consent, once\n granted, by informing the Sponsor.\n\n An Application is submitted by sending it to a Player designed\n by the Rules to receive Applications of that particular type,\n bearing a clear indication that the document in question is\n intended to be an Application and that it is being submitted by\n the Sponsor as an Application. If the Rules do not otherwise\n designate a Player to receive a particular type of Application,\n the Speaker shall do so. The effect of submitting an valid\n Application is determined by the Rules pertaining to\n Applications of that particular type.\n\n A person who submits an Application with signatures attached\n belonging to any person who has not consented to having eir\n signature attached to that Application commits the Class 4 Crime\n of Application Fraud. An Application submitted with attached\n signatures belonging to a person who did not consent to such\n attachment is invalid.\n\n Signatures are presumed to have been attached with the consent\n of the signatory. This presumption shall be rebutted only by a\n declaration from the alleged signatory, made within 60 days of\n the submission of the Application, stating that the signatory\n did not consent or that e consented and then subsequently\n revoked eir consent. The Sponsor bears the burden of proof to\n show that such a declaration, once made, is false.\n\n It shall be a defense to the Crime of Application Fraud that the\n Sponsor did not receive a signatory\'s notice of revocation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2605, May 26 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3565 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001'),(404690,'rcs','00000001.00000007',1827,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4160 (root), 5 June 2001','Granting or Denying Motions','Granting or Denying Motions',992008143,'Rule 1827/3 (Power=1)\nGranting or Denying Motions\n\n A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by\n the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was\n received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons\n for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by\n sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the\n Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.\n\n The effect of granting a Motion depends on the nature of the\n Motion granted, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to\n perform as requested by the Motion.\n\n Upon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk\n shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on\n the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the\n Motion of that determination.\n\n If a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within five days of\n when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, e\n commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Slow Motion, detected and\n reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If this occurs, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as\n usual.\n\n If a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original\n Judge of that case is no longer a Player or is On Hold, then\n a new Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4160 (root), 5 June 2001'),(404691,'rcs','00000001.00000007',1365,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions',992008143,'Rule 1365/7 (Power=1)\nConcurring and Dissenting Opinions\n\n There shall exist a type of Application called an Application\n to Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has\n the effect of annotating a Judgement or Dismissal in a given\n Call for Judgement. In order for such an Application to have\n effect upon submission, it must satisfy the following\n requirements:\n\n * It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies.\n * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or\n a Dissenting Opinion.\n * It must indicate whether the Judgement or Dismissal to\n which it applies is that of the Judge or that of the\n Appeals Court.\n * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations\n of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom.\n * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players.\n * It must be submitted no earlier than the submission of the\n Judgement or Dismissal to which it applies, and no later than\n one week after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of\n that Judgement or Dismissal.\n\n An Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted by submitting\n it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having\n been submitted and having met all the requirements for\n effectiveness, is also called an Opinion. It is also referred\n to as a Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as\n indicated in the Opinion.\n\n Once an Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted and takes\n effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to\n all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must\n be appended to the Legal Judgement or Dismissal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1365, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Nov. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2750 (Chuck), Nov. 18 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001'),(404692,'rcs','00000001.00000007',1533,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001','Application to Create an Organization','Application to Create an Organization',992008143,'Rule 1533/12 (Power=1)\nApplication to Create an Organization\n\n There is a type of Application called an Application to Create\n an Organization (ACO). A valid ACO, in order to have effect\n upon submission, must include the following:\n\n i) A defined class for the prospective Organization.\n ii) A unique Name for the prospective Organization.\n iii) An SLC for the prospective Organization.\n iv) All additional information required by the Rules governing\n the class of the prospective Organization.\n v) The signatures of at least as many distinct Players as\n required by the Rules governing the class of the\n prospective Organization, (minimum one) all of whom must be\n eligible to be members of the prospective Organization.\n\n A valid ACO is submitted by submitting it to the Notary or by\n publishing it.\n\n The effect of submitting a valid ACO is to create the\n prospective Organization, with the signatories as its Foundors.\n The Foundors then come under the Jurisdiction of that\n Organization\'s SLC.\n\n An ACO shall only be valid if its contents are not in conflict\n with this or other Rules. An ACO that is not valid shall never\n be submitted.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2035, Dec. 4 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, May 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2633, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Aug. 24 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1533, Sep. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001'),(404693,'rcs','00000001.00000007',716,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4159, 5 June 2001','How to Form a Group','How to Form a Group',992008143,'Rule 716/7 (Power=1)\nHow to Form a Group\n\n An ACO that attempts to form a Group must contain, in addition\n to any information required elsewhere, a specification of the\n prospective initial Ordinancekeepor and Vizier of the Group to\n be created. Further, an Application to Create a Group is\n invalid, and has no effect if submitted, if any of its\n signatories is a Member of another Group at the time of its\n submission.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 716 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1680, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2653, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2634, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4159, 5 June 2001'),(404694,'rcs','00000001.00000008',115,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1392, Jan. 24 1995','Self-Referential Rules Allowed','Self-Referential Rules Allowed',992008262,'Rule 115/0 (Power=3)\nSelf-Referential Rules Allowed\n\n Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply Rule\n Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even Rule\n Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are\n permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible\n solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a\n Rule.\n\n[CFJ 700: Self-amending and self-repealing Rules are allowed.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 115, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1392, Jan. 24 1995'),(404695,'rcs','00000001.00000009',1712,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',992610443,'Rule 1712/10 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by\n Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the\n number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that\n number shall be allowed to stand.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall not auction any Indulgences that month.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. In addition, the Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and\n the Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being\n allowed to bid.\n\n Upon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Indulgence\n Auction, the Herald shall pay out one Indulgence to the debtor\n of the satisfied debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001'),(404696,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1686,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001','Official Reports','Official Reports',992614483,'Rule 1686/9 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n For each Office, the Rules may designate certain information to\n be part of that Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. All\n Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports shall also be known as\n Official Reports. All information which is part of an Officer\'s\n Official Report(s) shall be maintained by that Officer.\n\n Each Officer with a Weekly Report is required to publish it\n during each Nomic Week; each Officer with a Monthly Report is\n required to publish it during each Nomic Month. Failure to do\n so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. Failure to\n do so for three consecutive Nomic (Weeks/Months) is instead the\n Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty; any Officer found\n guilty of this Infraction is automatically retired. These\n Infractions may be detected and reported by the Assistant\n Director of Personnel and the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001'),(404697,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1954,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001','Distribution of Papyri','Distribution of Papyri',992614483,'Rule 1954/3 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Papyri\n\n As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the\n Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must\n always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may\n auction as many Papyri as e wishes.\n\n The items to be auctioned are individual Papyri, and thus\n the number of items is equal to the number of Papyri to be\n Auctioned. The Auctioneer shall be the Promotor, and the Auction\n shall be conducted in Stems. Only Scribes may bid.\n\n Upon the satisfaction of a debt arising from a Papyrus Auction,\n the Promotor shall pay out one Papyrus to the debtor of the\n satisfied debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4056 (t), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001'),(404698,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1868,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',992614483,'Rule 1868/2 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n Whenever there is an open Call for Judgement to which no Player\n has been assigned as its Judge, the Clerk of the Court shall, as\n soon as possible after being made aware of this condition,\n select a Player to be assigned as its Judge and announce eir\n selection. This selection shall be made from amongst all\n those Players eligible to serve as the Judge of that CFJ.\n\n Once selected as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the\n Judge of that CFJ until e is Recused from that CFJ or becomes\n ineligible to Judge that particular CFJ.\n\n A CFJ is \"open\" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or\n if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to that\n CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is\n not open is closed.\n\nCFJ 1186, Judged TRUE Dec. 9 1999: \"The Clerk of the Courts is\nrequired by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time\nthat the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\neligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.\"\n\n[CFJ 1187, Judged TRUE Dec. 8 1999: \"A Judge is considered to be\n assigned to Judge a particular CFJ at the time that the Clerk of the\n Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and no sooner.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (404699,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1599,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4165 (Kelly), 11 June 2001','Overdue Debts','Overdue Debts',992614483,'Rule 1599/7 (Power=1)\nOverdue Debts\n\n The Executor of the creditor of any unsatisfied debt may, at any\n time, demand the debtor to satisfy that debt, provided e has not\n already done so. E does so by sending a message to the debtor\n setting forth the demand. The debtor shall have seven days to\n satisfy the debt from the time the demand is sent, except that\n if the debtor\'s Executor is on Hold at the time the demand is\n sent, the debtor shall instead have seven days from when the\n debtor\'s Executor comes off Hold to satisfy the debt. Time\n during which a debt is disputed is not counted for any purpose\n of this Rule.\n\n A debt not satisfied within the time allowed by this Rule\n becomes delinquent when that time elapses. It ceases to be\n delinquent when it is satisfied.\n\n Any Player who is either:\n (a) the Executor of an entity which owes a delinquent debt, or\n (b) a Limited Executor of an entity which has no Executor and\n which owes a delinquent debt, where:\n (1) that Player has the authority to execute a transfer for\n that entity which would satisfy the delinquent debt, and\n (2) that entity possesses sufficient Property such that the\n delinquent debt can be satisfied;\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Persistent Indebtedness when\n that debt first becomes delinquent, and commits it again every\n seven days thereafter for as long as the debt remains\n delinquent. This Infraction may be reported by the creditor of\n the delinquent debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3604 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3851 (General Chaos), Apr. 12 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4165 (Kelly), 11 June 2001'),(404700,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1887,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001','Default Procedure for Auctions','Default Procedure for Auctions',992614483,'Rule 1887/13 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Auctions\n\n When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction\n Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not\n specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure\n shall be used.\n\n The details specified herein are for the Default Auction\n Procedure.\n\n (a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting\n bids and announcing the result of the Auction. Unless\n otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Auctioneer.\n\n (b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the\n Auction cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of Items: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical items. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of items up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number\n of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible\n value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting\n Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires\n during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing\n that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and\n the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies\n the following conditions:\n (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or\n after its end.\n (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction\n Currency.\n (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by\n publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be\n cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.\n\n (i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started,\n there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have\n passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid\n (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction\n shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or\n all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids.\n\n The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the\n Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each\n winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.\n\n Unless specified otherwise, the Auctioneer shall pay out an\n Auctioned item to the winning Bidder as soon as possible after\n the bill for that item is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001'),(404701,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1888,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001','Private Auctions','Private Auctions',992614483,'Rule 1888/1 (Power=1)\nPrivate Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Private Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure except that Bids may only made by\n sending them privately to the Auctioneer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001'),(404702,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1983,'Created by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001','Vickrey Auctions','Vickrey Auctions',992614483,'Rule 1983/0 (Power=1)\nVickrey Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir\n Bid. Any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may\n bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.\n\n (b) Making Bids: If the Bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then the Bids must be made in a message to a\n Public Forum. Otherwise, the Bidder may either Bid in a\n Public Forum or privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (c) End of Auction: The Auction shall end one week after it\n begins.\n\n (d) The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid\n Bid, if there were N or more valid uncancelled Bids in\n the Auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of\n items being Auctioned.\n\n The Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a\n Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in\n progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much\n about their bidding as they wish.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001'),(404703,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1984,'Created by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001','Raffles','Raffles',992614483,'Rule 1984/0 (Power=1)\nRaffles\n\n There is a type of Auction named a Raffle. The Auction Procedure\n for a Raffle is as follows:\n\n (a) Riff-Raff: The Riff-Raff is responsible for selling Raffle\n tickets and announcing the result of the Raffle. Unless\n otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Riff-Raff.\n\n (b) Entrants: Every Player not on Hold may enter the Raffle. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player enters the\n Raffle.\n\n (c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular\n currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must\n specify the currency to be used, or the Raffle cannot take\n place.\n\n (d) Number of Items: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more\n identical items. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of items up for bid in the Raffle.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Raffle begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that a Raffle is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Riff-Raff, the Raffle Currency, the number\n of items, and the Ticket Price.\n\n (f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have the same Ticket Price.\n If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal\n to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.\n\n (g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of\n the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency to the Bank,\n provided that the purchase is not made before the start of\n the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many\n tickets as e desires during the Auction.\n\n (h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no\n Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed\n without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle\n shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall\n randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the\n Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and\n multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win.\n If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all\n valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the\n Raffle.\n\n (j) Final Auction Price: The Final Auction Price for a Raffle is\n equal to the Ticket Price.\n\n (k) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a week after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price\n in the Raffle Currency if:\n (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants,\n not including the Riff-Raff; and\n (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.\n\n (l) Announcing Winners: As soon as possible after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets and\n transfer to each winning Entrant a separate Auctioned item\n for each of eir winning tickets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001'),(404704,'rcs','00000001.00000010',1982,'Created by Proposal 4163 (Kelly), 11 June 2001','Calling Bonds','Calling Bonds',992614483,'Rule 1982/0 (Power=1)\nCalling Bonds\n\n At any time, the issuer of a Bond may call that Bond by\n publishing a notice stating that e is calling it. When the\n issuer of a Bond calls the bond, it is immediately accelerated,\n as described elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4163 (Kelly), 11 June 2001'),(404705,'rcs','00000001.00000011',1479,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"',992615663,'Rule 1479/3 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"\n\n Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to that\n entity for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\n Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one or\n more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the Bank for\n those Properties, and the named Player shall, as soon as\n possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\nCFJ 1301 (Judged TRUE, 13 June 2001): \"Rule 1479 should be interpreted\n such that an Order, which requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, and which is valid and proper under the\n Rules, causes the Bank to incur one or more debts to the named\n entity.\"\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2476, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000'),(404706,'rcs','00000001.00000013',1976,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4172 (root), 26 June 2001','Mentor\'s Bonus','Mentor\'s Bonus',993825005,'Rule 1976/1 (Power=1)\nMentor\'s Bonus\n\n In the four weeks immediately after eir Grace Period ends, a\n Player can award a Mentor\'s Bonus to any other player e deems to\n have been most helpful to em as a new Player. E can only make\n one such award. A Zombie may not make such an award.\n\n The award is made by public announcement. Upon such an\n announcement the Bank shall incur a debt in Stems to the named\n Mentor equal to the New Player Award for Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4143 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4172 (root), 26 June 2001'),(404707,'rcs','00000001.00000013',1970,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001','The Usuror','The Usuror',993825005,'Rule 1970/2 (Power=1)\nThe Usuror\n\n The Office of the Usuror is hereby established.\n\n The Usuror is a Limited Executor of the Bank, with the authority\n to satisfy debts of Bonds owed by the Bank to its creditors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001'),(404708,'rcs','00000001.00000013',1729,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4138 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001','Insanity','Insanity',993825005,'Rule 1729/3 (Power=1)\nInsanity\n\n An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule\n letter.\n (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not\n better.)\n\n For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended:\n there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been\n bended.\n Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor.\n The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and\n professor.\n\n And should such a Proposal\'s Voting Period begin,\n but no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win.\n\nCFJ 1178, Judged TRUE Nov. 18 1999: \"Rule 1729 permits voting on\nInsane Proposals by private message to the Assessor, even when the\nprevailing mode of voting on Proposals is Public.\"\n\n[CFJ 1078, Judged TRUE 8 January 1998: \"Morendil violated Rule 1729 by\n voting on Proposal 3640 in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3527 (Oerjan), Jul. 8 1997 (unattributed)\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), Feb. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3880 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4138 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001'),(404709,'rcs','00000001.00000013',991,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001','Invoking Judgement','Invoking Judgement',993825005,'Rule 991/4 (Power=2)\nInvoking Judgement\n\n Any person may seek formal resolution of any dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the\n Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar. Any document submitted to the\n Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar and which is clearly marked as\n a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement. (Although any CFJ\n may be filed with the Justiciar, Players are encouraged to file\n with the CotC unless there is a good reason not to.)\n\n For the purpose of this and other Rules, the submission of a CFJ\n shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.\n\n The Clerk shall distribute the text of a CFJ along with any\n additional material submitted by the Caller (including, but not\n limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not later than the time e\n announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it.\n However, if the CFJ is submitted to the Justiciar, e shall\n perform all duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to\n that CFJ.\n\n[CFJ 888: Non-Players may make Calls for Judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001'),(404710,'rcs','00000001.00000013',651,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4173 (Goethe), 26 June 2001','Heroes','Heroes',993825005,'Rule 651/2 (Power=1)\nHeroes\n\n Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be\n awarded to those persons who gave outstanding service to Agora\n Nomic or Nomics as a whole, but who are no longer Players or who\n never were Players. If a person Bearing the Patent Title of\n Hero is registered as a Player, e shall cease to Bear that\n Patent Title.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 651 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4173 (Goethe), 26 June 2001'),(404711,'rcs','00000001.00000013',1598,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001','Property Transfers','Property Transfers',993825005,'Rule 1598/10 (Power=1)\nProperty Transfers\n\n (a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the\n intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity\n (the \"transferor\") to some other entity (the \"transferee\").\n\n (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:\n (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by\n the transferor; and\n (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a\n Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to\n execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect\n to all of the Properties involved.\n\n (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor\n receives a valid Notice of Transfer.\n\n (d) The effect of a transfer of Properties is to cause the\n transferor to cease to possess the Properties transferred,\n and simultaneously to cause the transferee to possess them.\n\n (e) The Recordkeepor of a Property shall maintain a record of\n all transfers of that Property. E shall retain a record of\n each Notice of Transfer which e receives (whether valid or\n not) involving that Property. E shall retain this record of\n each Notice of Transfer for at least four weeks after its\n receipt.\n\n (f) If the transferor transfers Property to the transferee with\n the purpose of satisfying a debt, or of paying the Fee\n associated with performing an action, but the debt does not\n exist, or the action is not successfully performed, then the\n transferor\'s Executor may publicly demand the return of the\n Property. The effect of such a demand is to cause the\n transferee to incur a debt to the transferor for the\n Property transferred.\n\n[In CFJ 1302, judged TRUE on 26 June 2001, the Judge agreed with the\n caller\'s argument that \"a \'conditionally expressed Notice of\n Transfer\' (that is, a message which appears to be a Notice of\n Transfer but with a condition attached), where a reasonable person\n would conclude that the sender of the purported Notice of Transfer\n did not possess, at the time e sent the purported Notice of Transfer,\n immediate knowledge as to whether the condition was true, does not\n express an \'intent to transfer one or more Properties\' and as such is\n not a Notice of Transfer. Rather, such a message expresses an intent\n to achieve a certain state of affairs which may or may not include a\n transfer, and as such fails to set forth the requisite intent\n required by Rule 1598.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Nov. 26 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1598, Dec. 10 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3627 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001'),(404712,'rcs','00000001.00000013',1985,'Created by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001','The Usuror\'s Budget','The Usuror\'s Budget',993825005,'Rule 1985/0 (Power=1)\nThe Usuror\'s Budget\n\n The Usuror shall have a Budget. The Usuror\'s Budget shall\n consist of the following items:\n\n (i) The Basic Fee for issuing Bonds. This Fee shall be\n expressed as a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary and\n shall be an integral multiple of 0.1, not less than 0, and\n not greater than 4.\n\n (ii) The purchase rates at which the Bank will buy Bonds in\n each Bank Currency. These rates are expressed as\n percentages, in the range 0% to 100% inclusive. Each\n purchase rate applies only to a single combination of face\n value and time to maturity. Different rates may apply to\n different such combinations. Any combination for which no\n rate is specified has a purchase rate of 0%.\n\n (iii) The Credit Limit for Stems which is a multiple of the\n Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.\n\n (iv) The Credit Limit for each Bank currency, other than Stems,\n which is a multiple of the MUQ of that Currency between 0\n and 10 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001'),(404713,'rcs','00000001.00000013',1978,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001','Credit and Credit Limits','Credit and Credit Limits',993825005,'Rule 1978/1 (Power=1)\nCredit and Credit Limits\n\n A Player\'s current credit in a given currency is equal to the sum\n of the values of all Bonds owned by the Bank issued by that Player\n with a face value in that currency. Each Player\'s credit value in\n each currency shall be part of the Usuror\'s Weekly Report.\n\n The sale of a Bond is permitted only if it would not cause that\n Player\'s credit to exceed the Credit Limit in the currency in\n question as set forth in the Usuror\'s Budget.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001'),(404714,'rcs','00000001.00000014',1728,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',994426807,'Rule 1728/9 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is Dependent (or may be performed Dependently) if\n and only if it is an Action With N Objections or an Action\n With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer not greater\n than five. The phrase `Without Objection\' is synonymous with\n `Without 1 Objection\', and the phrase `With Support\' is\n synonymous with `With 1 Supporter\'. The Rules may name\n specific actions as Dependent Actions.\n\n A Player may, in a Public Forum, unambiguously describe a\n particular Dependent Action which e is authorised by the\n Rules to perform Dependently, and announce eir intent to\n perform it. That Player may perform that action if and only if:\n\n (a) e announced eir intent at most fourteen days before\n attempting to perform it, and, in the case of Actions\n Without N Objections, at least four days before attempting\n to perform it;\n\n (b) the authorising Rule explicitly indicates who may perform\n the action Dependently;\n\n (c) during the time between the announcement made under\n (a) of this Rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) fewer than N Players have publicly posted Objections\n to the performance of the action, if the action is to\n be performed Without N Objections; or\n\n (2) at least N Players other than the Player attempting to\n make the action have publicly posted Support for\n the performance of the action, if the action is to be\n performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (d) e publicly announces that e performs the described action.\n\n Properties which would be changed by a Dependent Action\n do not occur until announced as in (d).\n\n The specification in the Rules that an action may be\n performed Dependently in no way prohibits performing that\n same action if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n Rules calling for Dependent Actions may restrict the eligibility\n of Players to Support or Object to that specific Action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001'),(404715,'rcs','00000001.00000015',1960,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4175 (Elysion), 7 July 2001','Roles','Roles',995234774,'Rule 1960/1 (Power=1)\nRoles\n\n Each player may have a Role, which is one of the following:\n\n (a) Politician,\n (b) Scribe,\n (c) Acolyte.\n\n A Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a\n Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous\n roles. Initially players do not have any role.\n\n A Player changes eir Role by publicly announcing which Role e is\n changing to, provided one of the following is true:\n\n 1) e has no role or e has not changed eir role in the past 3\n months.\n 2) e has not changed eir role in the past six weeks and e\n has paid a Fee of 1 Indulgence for the purpose of making\n this change\n 3) e has paid a Fee of 3 Indulgences for the purpose of\n making this change.\n\n The Registrar shall keep track of each player\'s role, and\n include it in eir report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4175 (Elysion), 7 July 2001'),(404716,'rcs','00000001.00000015',1986,'Created by Proposal 4174 (Kelly), 7 July 2001','The Scribes\' Council','The Scribes\' Council',995234774,'Rule 1986/0 (Power=1)\nThe Scribes\' Council\n\n The set of all Players who are currently Scribes is known as the\n Scribes\' Council.\n\n Any Player may make any Undistributable Proposal Distributable\n (without payment of any Fee) with the Support of a majority of\n the Scribes\' Council.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4174 (Kelly), 7 July 2001'),(404717,'rcs','00000001.00000015',1940,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',995234774,'Rule 1940/3 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic\n compensations. As soon as possible after the beginning of each\n month, each periodic compensation required to be paid out shall\n be paid out by the Officer required to do so.\n\n The Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s\n Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are periodic\n compensations.\n\n The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to each\n Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the designated\n Salary for each Office that Player held for at least 16 days of\n the previous month.\n\n The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity to\n the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was both the\n Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of the previous\n month.\n\n The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a Player\n if that Player was Speaker for the whole of the previous month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001'),(404718,'rcs','00000001.00000015',698,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',995234774,'Rule 698/7 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some\n Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be\n considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as\n described in other Rules.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all\n Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by\n the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding\n the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall\n be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller\n shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any Players\n eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora\n without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling at a later date.\n\n This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to\n Judge a given CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001'),(404719,'rcs','00000001.00000015',1887,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001','Default Procedure for Auctions','Default Procedure for Auctions',995234774,'Rule 1887/14 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Auctions\n\n When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction\n Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not\n specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure\n shall be used.\n\n The details specified herein are for the Default Auction\n Procedure.\n\n (a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting\n bids and announcing the result of the Auction. Unless\n otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Auctioneer.\n\n (b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the\n Auction cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of Lots: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number\n of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible\n value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting\n Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires\n during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing\n that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and\n the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies\n the following conditions:\n (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or\n after its end.\n (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction\n Currency.\n (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by\n publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be\n cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.\n\n (i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started,\n there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have\n passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid\n (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction\n shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or\n all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids.\n\n The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the\n Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each\n winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.\n\n Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the\n winning Bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001'),(404720,'rcs','00000001.00000015',1983,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001','Vickrey Auctions','Vickrey Auctions',995234774,'Rule 1983/1 (Power=1)\nVickrey Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir\n Bid. Any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may\n bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.\n\n (b) Making Bids: If the Bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then the Bids must be made in a message to a\n Public Forum. Otherwise, the Bidder may either Bid in a\n Public Forum or privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (c) End of Auction: The Auction shall end one week after it\n begins.\n\n (d) The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid\n Bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled Bids in\n the Auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of\n items being Auctioned.\n\n The Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a\n Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in\n progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much\n about their bidding as they wish.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001'),(404721,'rcs','00000001.00000015',1984,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4177 (Elysion), 7 July 2001','Raffles','Raffles',995234774,'Rule 1984/2 (Power=1)\nRaffles\n\n There is a type of Auction named a Raffle. The Auction Procedure\n for a Raffle is as follows:\n\n (a) Riff-Raff: The Riff-Raff is responsible for selling Raffle\n tickets and announcing the result of the Raffle. Unless\n otherwise specified, the Speaker shall be the Riff-Raff.\n\n (b) Entrants: Every Player not on Hold may enter the Raffle. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player enters the\n Raffle. However, if a rule prohibits a player from bidding\n in this Auction, then e is also prohibited from buying\n tickets.\n\n (c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular\n currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must\n specify the currency to be used, or the Raffle cannot take\n place.\n\n (d) Number of Lots: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Raffle.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Raffle begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that a Raffle is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Riff-Raff, the Raffle Currency, the number\n of items, and the Ticket Price.\n\n (f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have the same Ticket Price.\n If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal\n to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.\n\n (g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of\n the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency to the Bank,\n provided that the purchase is not made before the start of\n the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many\n tickets as e desires during the Auction.\n\n (h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no\n Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed\n without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle\n shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall\n randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the\n Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and\n multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win.\n If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all\n valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the\n Raffle.\n\n (j) Final Auction Price: The Final Auction Price for a Raffle is\n equal to the Ticket Price.\n\n (k) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a week after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price\n in the Raffle Currency if:\n (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants,\n not including the Riff-Raff; and\n (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.\n\n (l) Announcing Winners: As soon as possible after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets.\n Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each\n winning Entrant for each of eir winning tickets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4177 (Elysion), 7 July 2001'),(404722,'rcs','00000001.00000015',1929,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4180 (Elysion), 7 July 2001','Points','Points',995234774,'Rule 1929/4 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness,\n measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an\n integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since\n the last Win has a Score of zero Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)\n or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said\n event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the\n Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in\n the affected Player\'s Score.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first such notification for that specific\n event\n\n Having a Score of 100 Points or more is a Win Condition. If at\n any time a Player Wins the Game, all Player\'s Scores shall\n instantly be set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Propsoal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4180 (Elysion), 7 July 2001'),(404723,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1988,'Created by Proposal 4182 (Oerjan), 9 July 2001','Bastille Day','Bastille Day',995235816,'Rule 1988/0 (Power=2)\nBastille Day\n\n July 14 of each year shall be known as Bastille Day. For a\n Revolt called on this day the normal procedure is modified, as\n follows:\n\n i) Each Rebellious Player shall count twice for the purpose\n of determining success if, during that Bastille Day, e\n publicly hums a few bars of \'La Marseillaise\'.\n\n This includes the determination of the number of players,\n and the Miscreant adjustment, which may become 2 rather\n than 1.\n\n ii) On success, rather than having all eir Blots expunged,\n each Rebellious Player shall be left with 1 Blot each,\n even if e was previously Immaculate.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over the normal Revolt Procedure.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4182 (Oerjan), 9 July 2001'),(404724,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1528,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Organizations','Organizations',995235816,'Rule 1528/7 (Power=1)\nOrganizations\n\n An Organization is an entity designated as such by the Rules.\n\n Each Organization shall have the following properties:\n\n a) A Name.\n b) A Class.\n c) A Charter.\n d) An Administrator.\n e) One or more Members.\n\n Any of these properties may be changed by unanimous agreement of\n all Members, except for Class which may never change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404725,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1614,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Names of Organizations','Names of Organizations',995235816,'Rule 1614/7 (Power=1)\nNames of Organizations\n\n Each Organization has a unique Name. The Name of an Organization\n may only change as specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404726,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1987,'Created by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Classes of Organizations','Classes of Organizations',995235816,'Rule 1987/0 (Power=1)\nClasses of Organizations\n\n The following Classes of Organizations exist:\n\n a) Groups.\n b) Contests.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404727,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1612,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Charters of Organizations','Charters of Organizations',995235816,'Rule 1612/2 (Power=1)\nCharters of Organizations\n\n Each Organization has an associated SLC, known as its Charter.\n The Charter of an Organization may only change as specified by\n its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n A Member of an Organization is a Player within the jurisdiction\n of its Charter.\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player shall ever\n involuntarily become a Member of an Organization.\n\n When an Organization ceases to exist, its Charter ceases to\n exist.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404728,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1531,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Administrators of Organizations','Administrators of Organizations',995235816,'Rule 1531/9 (Power=1)\nAdministrators of Organizations\n\n Each Organization shall have an Administrator, who must be a\n Member. The Administrator of an Organization may only change as\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator is Maintainer of the Charter, unless otherwise\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator is Executor of the Organization, unless\n otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator shall inform the Notary of the following\n changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the\n nature of the change:\n\n a) The Name changes.\n b) The Administrator changes.\n c) The Executor changes.\n d) The Maintainer of the Charter changes.\n e) The jurisdiction of the Charter changes.\n f) The Organization voluntarily dissolves.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jul. 20 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1531, Aug. 3 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404729,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1533,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Application to Create an Organization','Application to Create an Organization',995235816,'Rule 1533/13 (Power=1)\nApplication to Create an Organization\n\n An Application to Create an Organization (ACO) shall be submitted\n to the Notary.\n\n To be valid, an ACO must specify all properties that an Organization\n is required to have. Other Rules may place further conditions on the\n validity of ACOs for a specific Class of Organization.\n\n The effect of submitting a valid ACO is to create the prospective\n Organization, with the Sponsor and signatories as Foundors and\n initial Members.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2035, Dec. 4 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, May 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2633, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Aug. 24 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1533, Sep. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404730,'rcs','00000001.00000017',1397,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Dissolution of Organizations','Dissolution of Organizations',995235816,'Rule 1397/7 (Power=1)\nDissolution of Organizations\n\n A Organization shall cease to exist only as specified by its\n Charter or by the Rules.\n\n An Organization shall cease to exist if it would otherwise lack\n a property that Organizations are required to have.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1397, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1687, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404731,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1478,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Executors and Limited Executors','Executors and Limited Executors',995841213,'Rule 1478/5 (Power=1)\nExecutors and Limited Executors\n\n (a) An Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered by the\n Rules to act on behalf of that entity, who is called the\n Executee. There may be more than one such Player. An\n Executor of an Executee may perform on behalf of the\n Executee all such actions as the Rules permit the Executee\n to perform.\n\n (b) A Limited Executor of an entity is a Player who is empowered\n by the Rules to perform on behalf of that entity a subset of\n the actions which the Rules permit the entity to perform. A\n Limited Executor is permitted to perform on behalf of an\n Executee only such actions as are explicitly permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n (c) A Player is always eir own Executor. Other entities have\n Executors (or Limited Executors) only as and when the Rules\n provide.\n\n (d) A Player acting on behalf of an entity other than emself\n must clearly indicate on whose behalf e is acting. A Player\n who does not clearly indicate that e is acting on behalf of\n some entity other than emself is presumed to be acting on\n eir own behalf.\n\n (e) Only persons may perform actions. Non-persons perform\n actions only via the agency of persons, as specified by the\n Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2514, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3516 (General Chaos), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404732,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1989,'Created by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Prime Executors','Prime Executors',995841213,'Rule 1989/0 (Power-1)\nPrime Executors\n\n (a) The Prime Executor of an entity with respect to a certain\n action is the Player who is responsible for performing that\n action. For each action that an entity is required to\n perform, there shall be at most one Prime Executor of that\n entity with respect to that action. Any penalty incurred due\n to an entity\'s failure to perform as required by the Rules\n is incurred by the Prime Executor of that entity.\n\n (b) Any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the Prime\n Executor of an entity with respect to a certain action must\n be an Executor of that entity, or a Limited Executor of that\n entity who is permitted to perform that action on behalf of\n that entity.\n\n (c) If the Rules designate a Player to be the Prime Executor of\n an entity, without specifying particular actions that the\n Prime Executor is responsible for performing, then that\n Player is the Prime Executor of that entity with respect to\n all actions that the entity is required to perform.\n\n (d) Unless otherwise specified by the Rules, each Player is eir\n own Prime Executor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404733,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1841,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Granting Power of Attorney','Granting Power of Attorney',995841213,'Rule 1841/3 (Power=1)\nGranting Power of Attorney\n\n (a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered\n for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of\n Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified\n in this Rule.\n\n (b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following\n conditions are met:\n (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the\n Holder;\n (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or\n immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement,\n publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA;\n (3) the Holder is Active; and\n (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the\n reasons listed in (d).\n\n (c) The grant of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants\n eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder consents to\n the grant, or at the time specified by the Grantor,\n whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at\n which the grant of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no\n more than seven says from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later\n specifications are without effect for the purposes of this\n Rule.\n\n (d) The grant of PoA is withdrawn if:\n (1) the period of the grant specified by the Grantor\n expires;\n (2) the Grantor publically withdraws the grant;\n (3) the Grantor is deregistered;\n (4) the Assessor is mischevious;\n (5) the Holder is deregistered or goes On Hold; or\n (6) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three\n months.\n\n (e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other\n Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.\n\n (f) Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player who\n has granted PoA to another Player as described in this Rule\n shall become a Zombie while the grant of PoA is in effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404734,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1842,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Power of Attorney','Power of Attorney',995841213,'Rule 1842/1 (Power=1)\nPower of Attorney\n\n (a) The Rules may grant a Player, called the Holder, Power of\n Attorney for another Player, called the Grantor. Power of\n Attorney is granted only as specified by the Rules, and\n shall last only as long as the Rules specify.\n\n (b) While the Holder is granted Power of Attorney for the\n Grantor, the Holder is an Executor of the Grantor, and the\n Prime Executor of the Grantor.\n\n (c) No Player is permitted to have Power of Attorney for more\n than two other Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404735,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1937,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4185 (Ziggy), 18 July 2001','Distributing Positions in the Oligarchy','Distributing Positions in the Oligarchy',995841213,'Rule 1937/6 (Power=2)\nDistributing Positions in the Oligarchy\n\n When there are six Oligarchs and a number of Low Oligarchs other\n than three, the Oligarchy is \"abnormally distributed\", and an\n Oligarchy selection takes place as set out below.\n\n After a Player has become an Oligarch, or an Oligarch has\n changed rank, then if the Oligarchy is abnormally distributed,\n the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall, within three days,\n publish a list of the Oligarchs and their ranks, identifying\n those Players who are required to make the selection, and the\n set of Players from whom the selection is to be made. Failure to\n do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Oligardiness, which may be\n reported by any Player. However, if the Oligarchy selection\n occurs before the GWoTO publishes the list, the GWoTO is\n relieved of eir obligation to publish it.\n\n Whenever there are six Oligarchs, and no High Oligarch, the Low\n Oligarchs are permitted to select a Middle Oligarch to become\n the new High Oligarch. If there are no Middle Oligarchs, the Low\n Oligarchs shall instead select one of their own number to become\n the new High Oligarch. The immediately prior High Oligarch may\n not be selected as the new High Oligarch, if e is presently a\n Low Oligarch.\n\n Whenever there are six Oligarchs, a High Oligarch, and fewer\n than two Middle Oligarchs, the High Oligarch is permitted to\n select a Low Oligarch to become Middle Oligarch.\n\n When a selection from a set of one candidate is to be made, that\n candidate is selected immediately without any action by any\n Player.\n\n When a selection from a set of two or more candidates is to be\n made, and that selection is not to be made by the Speaker, the\n individual or individuals who are to make the selection shall\n announce their recommendations in the Public Forum. They are\n permitted to make their recommendations from the time the\n Oligarchy becomes abnormally distributed. They are required to\n make their recommendations within three days of the GWoTO\'s\n announcement. Recommendations, once made, cannot be changed.\n\n The selection occurs when one candidate has received the\n recommendation of a majority of those persons required to make a\n recommendation. If three days pass from the GWoTO\'s announcement\n without one candidate receiving the recommendation of a\n majority, then if there is a candidate which has received more\n recommendations than any other candidate, that candidate is\n selected; otherwise, the decision passes to the Speaker, and the\n Speaker shall make the selection.\n\n When a selection from a set of two or more candidates is to be\n made, and that selection is required to be made by the Speaker,\n the Speaker shall make eir selection within seven days by\n announcing it in the Public Forum. A Speaker who fails to make\n such a selection becomes Tainted. If, at the time a Player\n becomes Speaker, the previous Speaker was required to make a\n selection by this Rule and had not yet done so, the new Speaker\n shall be instead required to make the selection, and shall do so\n within seven days of becoming Speaker, or become Tainted.\n\n If a vacancy in the Oligarchy arises when the Oligarchy is\n abnormally distributed, then the Oligarchy selection and all\n requirements on Players arising from it are cancelled.\n\n Any Player required to make a recommendation by this Rule who\n fails to do so within the allotted time commits the Class 1\n Infraction of Oligardiness; this Infraction may be reported by\n any Player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4073c (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4185 (Ziggy), 18 July 2001'),(404736,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1991,'Created by Proposal 4194 (neil), 18 July 2001','Opposite Proposals','Opposite Proposals',995841213,'Rule 1991/0 (Power=1)\nOpposite Proposals\n\n Each time the Promotor distributes Proposals, e shall first\n select at random a single distributable Proposal, to be known as\n the Target. E may then distribute with these Proposals an\n Opposite Proposal for the Target. If e does so, e may, Without\n 2 Objections, pay out 0.1 Papyri to eirself.\n\n An Opposite Proposal should be clearly marked as such. It\n should be substantially the opposite, in spirit or effect, of\n its Target. An Opposite Proposal shall have the same status as\n its Target, including AI, Sanity, Insanity, Urgentness,\n Disinterestedness, and Democraticity; except that, if the Target\n does not have an AI of at least 2, the Opposite Proposal shall\n be neither Democratic nor Sane.\n\n The Promotor shall be considered to be the proposer of the\n Opposite Proposal, but shall incur no penalties as a result of\n being its proposer. This Rule takes precedence over all Rules\n which would impose such penalties.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4194 (neil), 18 July 2001'),(404737,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1934,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4187 (neil), 18 July 2001','The Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy','The Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy',995841213,'Rule 1934/4 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy\n\n An Untainted Speaker may, with 3 Supporters, Sanitise an Interested\n Proposal which would otherwise be an Ordinary Proposal, for\n which the Voting Period has not yet concluded, and which has\n never been the subject of an Attempt to Democratise.\n\n If a Proposal is Sanitised before its Voting Period commences,\n said Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal, becomes a Sane Proposal,\n and has its Distribution Cost modified as required by other Rules.\n\n If a Proposal is Sanitised during its Voting Period, said\n Proposal is not modified until at least one Papyrus is publicly\n transferred to the Bank solely for this stated purpose by any\n Player during the Proposal\'s Voting Period. If this happens,\n the Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal, the Proposal becomes\n a Sane Proposal, and all votes thus far cast on the Proposal are\n cancelled. The Assessor shall announce that the Proposal ha\n been successfully Sanitised; the Voting Period of the Proposal\n is extended to end seven days after this announcement.\n\n Any Player may, With Support, make an Attempt to Democratise an\n Interested Proposal which would otherwise be an Ordinary\n Proposal, and for which the Voting Period has not yet concluded.\n There is a Fee of 0.1 VEs for a Player other than an Untainted\n Speaker to make an Attempt to Democratise. This Fee must be\n paid publicly.\n\n Once an Attempt to Democratise a Proposal has been made, until\n the end of the Proposal\'s Voting Period, any Player may publicly\n transfer any number of VEs to the Bank with a clear, unambiguous\n statement that this transfer is made solely for the purpose of\n Democratising the Proposal, or solely for the purpose of keeping\n the Proposal Ordinary.\n\n At the end of the Voting Period, Democratisation succeeds if at\n least as many VEs have been publicly transferred to the Bank for\n Democratisating the Proposal as for keeping the Proposal\n Ordinary. The Assessor shall announce as soon as possible after\n the end of the Voting Period whether or not Democratisation of\n that Proposal has succeeded.\n\n If Democratisation does not succeed, the Voting Period is\n considered to have ended as usual. The Attempt does not in any\n way modify the Proposal in question.\n\n If Democratisation succeeds, the Proposal becomes a Democratic\n Proposal, and all Votes thus far cast on the Proposal are\n cancelled. The Voting Period for that Proposal is considered\n not to have ended (except for the purposes of this Attempt to\n Democratise), and is extended to end seven days after the\n Assessor\'s announcement that Democratisation has succeeded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 26 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4049 (Elysion), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4145 (Ian), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4187 (neil), 18 July 2001'),(404738,'rcs','00000001.00000019',683,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Voting on Proposals','Voting on Proposals',995841213,'Rule 683/10 (Power=1)\nVoting on Proposals\n\n A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do\n so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is\n casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or\n cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be\n cancelled as other Rules require.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404739,'rcs','00000001.00000019',947,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Bonus for Repeal','Bonus for Repeal',995841213,'Rule 947/16 (Power=1)\nBonus for Repeal\n\n (a) If there are 100 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted\n which, as part of all of its effect, repeals one or more\n Rules, and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the Proposal\n simplifies the Ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 30\n Stems to the Proposer of that Proposal. If the Rulekeepor\n decides that the Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, e\n must announce this decision.\n\n (b) When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not\n simplify the Ruleset, the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse\n the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided\n the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of\n the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. Blob is\n Mauvy. As soon as possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision\n is reversed in this manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall\n pay out 30 Stems to emself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 947, Jul. 3 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Oct. 2 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2047, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3471 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), Nov. 6 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3848 (Chuck), Mar. 26 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404740,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1959,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Wills','Wills',995841213,'Rule 1959/1 (Power=1)\nWills\n\n (a) An entity\'s Will is a description of how the entity\'s\n Property should be distributed in the event that the entity\n ceases to have an Executor. The Notary shall keep a record\n of all Wills.\n\n (b) An entity creates a Will for itself by publishing it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404741,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1981,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property',995841213,'Rule 1981/1 (Power=1)\nEmbezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property\n\n (a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity\n which is made without being explicitly required or permitted\n by the Rules is unauthorized.\n\n (b) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property from any entity to another entity\n commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.\n\n (c) An entity which receives Property from any entity as the\n result of an intentional, valid and unauthorized transfer\n incurs a debt to the transferor for all such Property.\n\n (d) A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of which\n e is the Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the type\n decribed in\n (c) and who does not act to satisfy that debt within in a week of\n being informed of it commits the Class 10 Crime of Receiving\n Stolen Property.\n\n (e) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized\n transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if\n and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making\n it:\n (1) knew that the transfer was valid;\n (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and\n (3) realized that e was making the transfer.\n\n (f) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property as the result of an accident or mistake\n does not commit Embezzlement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404742,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1598,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Property Transfers','Property Transfers',995841213,'Rule 1598/12 (Power=1)\nProperty Transfers\n\n (a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the\n intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity\n (the \"transferor\") to some other entity (the \"transferee\").\n\n (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:\n (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by\n the transferor; and\n (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a\n Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to\n execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect\n to all of the Properties involved.\n\n (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor\n receives a valid Notice of Transfer.\n\n (d) The effect of a transfer of Properties is to cause the\n transferor to cease to possess the Properties transferred,\n and simultaneously to cause the transferee to possess them.\n\n (e) The Recordkeepor of a Property shall maintain a record of\n all transfers of that Property. E shall retain a record of\n each Notice of Transfer which e receives (whether valid or\n not) involving that Property. E shall retain this record of\n each Notice of Transfer for at least four weeks after its\n receipt.\n\n (f) If the transferor transfers Property to the transferee with\n the purpose of satisfying a debt, or of paying the Fee\n associated with performing an action, but the debt does not\n exist, or the action is not successfully performed, then the\n transferor may publicly demand the return of the Property.\n The effect of such a demand is to cause the transferee to\n incur a debt to the transferor for the Property transferred.\n\n[In CFJ 1302, judged TRUE on 26 June 2001, the Judge agreed with the\n caller\'s argument that \"a \'conditionally expressed Notice of\n Transfer\' (that is, a message which appears to be a Notice of\n Transfer but with a condition attached), where a reasonable person\n would conclude that the sender of the purported Notice of Transfer\n did not possess, at the time e sent the purported Notice of Transfer,\n immediate knowledge as to whether the condition was true, does not\n express an \'intent to transfer one or more Properties\' and as such is\n not a Notice of Transfer. Rather, such a message expresses an intent\n to achieve a certain state of affairs which may or may not include a\n transfer, and as such fails to set forth the requisite intent\n required by Rule 1598.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Nov. 26 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1598, Dec. 10 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3627 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404743,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1853,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4193 (Taral), 18 July 2001','Levying Taxes','Levying Taxes',995841213,'Rule 1853/8 (Power=1)\nLevying Taxes\n\n Taxes may be levied only by an Officer explicitly permitted by\n the Rules to do so.\n\n An Officer levies a tax by announcing that e does so, and\n specifying:\n\n (1) The Currency being taxed.\n (2) The percentage of the tax.\n (3) Any exemptions applying to the tax.\n (4) The Rule authorizing em to levy the tax.\n\n Upon such an announcement, each taxable entity becomes liable to\n the Bank for a debt equal to the specified percentage of eir\n taxable holdings of that Currency at the time of the\n announcement. As soon as possible after this happens, the\n Recordkeepor of that Currency shall publish a report listing\n each entity\'s holdings of that Currency as of the time of the\n announcement.\n\n All entities are taxable, except for:\n\n (a) the Bank\n (b) all Rebellious Players who were Rebellious at the time the\n intent to levy was published\n (c) entities explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing the\n levy as tax-exempt for that levy\n\n All Currency holdings are taxable, except for holdings\n explicitly specified by the Rule authorizing the levy as\n tax-exempt for that levy.\n\n The percentage of the tax may not exceed 50%, unless the Rule\n authorizing the levy explicitly permits it to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3747 (Steve), May 22 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3790 (Steve), Oct. 6 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3857 (General Chaos), Apr. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4127 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4193 (Taral), 18 July 2001'),(404744,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1470,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','The Bank','The Bank',995841213,'Rule 1470/6 (Power=1)\nThe Bank\n\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank\n Currency. The Bank is permitted to transfer Property in its\n possession to other entities.\n\n (b) The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank. Each Recordkeepor\n of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of the Bank, and\n is empowered to make transfers of that Currency from the\n Bank.\n\n (c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime\n Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in\n that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the\n Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is\n required to perform.\n\n (d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any\n other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole\n or in part:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404745,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1712,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',995841213,'Rule 1712/11 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by\n Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less\n the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other\n entities during that same Nomic Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the\n number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that\n number shall be allowed to stand.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. In addition, the Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and\n the Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being\n allowed to bid.\n\n Upon the satisfaction of a debt arising from an Indulgence\n Auction, the Herald shall pay out one Indulgence to the debtor\n of the satisfied debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001'),(404746,'rcs','00000001.00000019',1990,'Created by Proposal 4191 (Goethe), 18 July 2001','Points Contests','Points Contests',995841213,'Rule 1990/0 (Power=1)\nPoints Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states\n that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the\n Contestsmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Nomic\n month.\n\n PWIN is the number of points required for a Player to achieve a\n win condition, as defined elsewhere in the Rules. PPP (Points\n Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.\n\n Once during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a\n Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of\n Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s\n Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be\n awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants\n may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing.\n The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained\n in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.\n\n The total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each\n such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of\n Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the\n 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are\n listed the Notice is invalid.\n\n The total number of Points that a single Player may receive from\n all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN\n divided by five. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a\n Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is\n invalid for that Player only.\n\n The posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event\n Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4191 (Goethe), 18 July 2001'),(404747,'rcs','00000001.00000020',1989,'Created by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Prime Executors','Prime Executors',995841545,'Rule 1989/0 (Power=1)\nPrime Executors\n\n (a) The Prime Executor of an entity with respect to a certain\n action is the Player who is responsible for performing that\n action. For each action that an entity is required to\n perform, there shall be at most one Prime Executor of that\n entity with respect to that action. Any penalty incurred due\n to an entity\'s failure to perform as required by the Rules\n is incurred by the Prime Executor of that entity.\n\n (b) Any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the Prime\n Executor of an entity with respect to a certain action must\n be an Executor of that entity, or a Limited Executor of that\n entity who is permitted to perform that action on behalf of\n that entity.\n\n (c) If the Rules designate a Player to be the Prime Executor of\n an entity, without specifying particular actions that the\n Prime Executor is responsible for performing, then that\n Player is the Prime Executor of that entity with respect to\n all actions that the entity is required to perform.\n\n (d) Unless otherwise specified by the Rules, each Player is eir\n own Prime Executor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404748,'rcs','00000001.00000022',947,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Bonus for Repeal','Bonus for Repeal',996243815,'Rule 947/16 (Power=1)\nBonus for Repeal\n\n (a) If there are 100 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted\n which, as part of all of its effect, repeals one or more\n Rules, and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the Proposal\n simplifies the Ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 30\n Stems to the Proposer of that Proposal. If the Rulekeepor\n decides that the Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, e\n must announce this decision.\n\n (b) When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not\n simplify the Ruleset, the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse\n the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided\n the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of\n the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. As soon as\n possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this\n manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 30 Stems to\n emself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 947, Jul. 3 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Oct. 2 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2047, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3471 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), Nov. 6 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3848 (Chuck), Mar. 26 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4180 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404749,'rcs','00000001.00000023',683,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Voting on Proposals','Voting on Proposals',996243909,'Rule 683/10 (Power=1)\nVoting on Proposals\n\n A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do\n so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is\n casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or\n cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be\n cancelled as other Rules require.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404750,'rcs','00000001.00000023',947,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Bonus for Repeal','Bonus for Repeal',996243909,'Rule 947/16 (Power=1)\nBonus for Repeal\n\n (a) If there are 100 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted\n which, as part of all of its effect, repeals one or more\n Rules, and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the Proposal\n simplifies the Ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 30\n Stems to the Proposer of that Proposal. If the Rulekeepor\n decides that the Proposal does not simplify the Ruleset, e\n must announce this decision.\n\n (b) When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not\n simplify the Ruleset, the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse\n the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided\n the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of\n the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. As soon as\n possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this\n manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 30 Stems to\n emself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 947, Jul. 3 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Oct. 2 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2047, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3471 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), Nov. 6 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3848 (Chuck), Mar. 26 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404751,'rcs','00000001.00000023',1959,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Wills','Wills',996243909,'Rule 1959/1 (Power=1)\nWills\n\n (a) An entity\'s Will is a description of how the entity\'s\n Property should be distributed in the event that the entity\n ceases to have an Executor. The Notary shall keep a record\n of all Wills.\n\n (b) An entity creates a Will for itself by publishing it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404752,'rcs','00000001.00000023',1981,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property',996243909,'Rule 1981/1 (Power=1)\nEmbezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property\n\n (a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity\n which is made without being explicitly required or permitted\n by the Rules is unauthorized.\n\n (b) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property from any entity to another entity\n commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.\n\n (c) An entity which receives Property from any entity as the\n result of an intentional, valid and unauthorized transfer\n incurs a debt to the transferor for all such Property.\n\n (d) A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of which\n e is the Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the type\n decribed in\n (c) and who does not act to satisfy that debt within in a week of\n being informed of it commits the Class 10 Crime of Receiving\n Stolen Property.\n\n (e) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized\n transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if\n and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making\n it:\n (1) knew that the transfer was valid;\n (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and\n (3) realized that e was making the transfer.\n\n (f) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property as the result of an accident or mistake\n does not commit Embezzlement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404753,'rcs','00000001.00000023',1598,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Property Transfers','Property Transfers',996243909,'Rule 1598/12 (Power=1)\nProperty Transfers\n\n (a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the\n intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity\n (the \"transferor\") to some other entity (the \"transferee\").\n\n (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:\n (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by\n the transferor; and\n (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a\n Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to\n execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect\n to all of the Properties involved.\n\n (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor\n receives a valid Notice of Transfer.\n\n (d) The effect of a transfer of Properties is to cause the\n transferor to cease to possess the Properties transferred,\n and simultaneously to cause the transferee to possess them.\n\n (e) The Recordkeepor of a Property shall maintain a record of\n all transfers of that Property. E shall retain a record of\n each Notice of Transfer which e receives (whether valid or\n not) involving that Property. E shall retain this record of\n each Notice of Transfer for at least four weeks after its\n receipt.\n\n (f) If the transferor transfers Property to the transferee with\n the purpose of satisfying a debt, or of paying the Fee\n associated with performing an action, but the debt does not\n exist, or the action is not successfully performed, then the\n transferor may publicly demand the return of the Property.\n The effect of such a demand is to cause the transferee to\n incur a debt to the transferor for the Property transferred.\n\n[In CFJ 1302, judged TRUE on 26 June 2001, the Judge agreed with the\n caller\'s argument that \"a \'conditionally expressed Notice of\n Transfer\' (that is, a message which appears to be a Notice of\n Transfer but with a condition attached), where a reasonable person\n would conclude that the sender of the purported Notice of Transfer\n did not possess, at the time e sent the purported Notice of Transfer,\n immediate knowledge as to whether the condition was true, does not\n express an \'intent to transfer one or more Properties\' and as such is\n not a Notice of Transfer. Rather, such a message expresses an intent\n to achieve a certain state of affairs which may or may not include a\n transfer, and as such fails to set forth the requisite intent\n required by Rule 1598.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Nov. 26 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1598, Dec. 10 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3627 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404754,'rcs','00000001.00000024',1992,'Created by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001','Monks','Monks',996439473,'Rule 1992/0 (Power=1)\nMonks\n\n A player is Sanctimonious if e satisfies all of the following\n conditiions:\n\n 1. E is not a Zombie.\n 2. E is not a Zombie Master.\n 3. E possesses less than four times the Basic Officer Salary of\n Stems.\n 4. E does not possess any Voting Entitlements.\n 5. E is a Senator.\n 6. E is not the Executor or Limited Executor of any entity other\n than the Bank or Monastery which possesses Voting\n Entitlements, Zombies, or Stems.\n 7. E is Immaculate.\n\n A Sanctimonious player becomes a Monk by notifying the Registrar\n that e becomes a Monk, provided that e has been Sanctimonious\n for at least one week. The condition of being a Monk is revoked\n upon the beginning of a Nomic Week after the dissatisfaction of\n any of the aforementioned conditions for at least 48 hours, if\n and only if a player reports this dissatisfaction to the\n Registrar before the beginning of the week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001'),(404755,'rcs','00000001.00000024',1952,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',996439473,'Rule 1952/1 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n Each Proposal is either Distributable or Undistributable.\n Initially, each Proposal is Undistributable. When a Proposal\n becomes Disinterested, it immediately becomes Distributable\n and may not become Undistributable by any means as long as\n it remains Disinterested.\n\n Any Player may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal\n Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and\n Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri equal to the amount of the\n Distribution Cost of the Proposal. Any Player may make any\n Interested Distributable Proposal in the Proposal Pool\n Undistributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and\n Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri double the amount of the\n Distribution Cost of the Proposal.\n\n Any Monk may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal\n Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and\n Paying a Fee of a number of Papyri equal to half the amount of\n the Distribution Cost of the Proposal, rounded up.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001'),(404756,'rcs','00000001.00000024',559,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001','The Registrar','The Registrar',996439473,'Rule 559/16 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of Players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered Players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including\n the Player subject to the Grace Period, the time at\n which it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready Players;\n\n (iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters\n are;\n\n (v) the most recent date on which each Player registered;\n\n (vi) each Player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that Player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vii) each Player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or\n Silent; and\n\n (viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir\n Term of Service).\n\n (viii) A list of Players who are Monks.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001'),(404757,'rcs','00000001.00000024',1985,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4196 (neil), 26 July 2001','The Usuror\'s Budget','The Usuror\'s Budget',996439473,'Rule 1985/1 (Power=1)\nThe Usuror\'s Budget\n\n The Usuror shall have a Budget. The Usuror\'s Budget shall\n consist of the following items:\n\n (i) The Basic Fee for issuing Bonds. This Fee shall be\n expressed as a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary and\n shall be an integral multiple of 0.1, not less than 0, and\n not greater than 4.\n\n (ii) The purchase rates at which the Bank will buy Bonds in\n each Bank Currency. These rates are expressed as\n percentages, in the range 0% to 100% inclusive. Each\n purchase rate applies only to a single combination of face\n value and time to maturity. Different rates may apply to\n different such combinations. Any combination for which no\n rate is specified has a purchase rate of 0%.\n\n (iii) The Player Credit Limit for Stems, which is a multiple of\n the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.\n\n (iv) The Non-Player Entity Credit Limit for Stems, which is a\n multiple of the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10\n inclusive.\n\n (v) The Player Credit Limit for each Bank currency, other than\n Stems, which is a multiple of the MUQ of that Currency\n between 0 and 20 inclusive.\n\n (vi) The Non-Player Credit Limit for each Bank currency, other\n than Stems, which is a multiple of the MUQ of that\n Currency between 0 and 20 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4196 (neil), 26 July 2001'),(404758,'rcs','00000001.00000024',1978,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4196 (neil), 26 July 2001','Credit and Credit Limits','Credit and Credit Limits',996439473,'Rule 1978/2 (Power=1)\nCredit and Credit Limits\n\n The credit in a given currency of an entity with Bond Issuance\n Authority is equal to the sum of the values of all Bonds owned\n by the Bank issued by that entity with a face value in that\n currency. The Usuror\'s Weekly Report shall list the credit in\n each currency of each non-Bank entity with Bond Issuance\n Authority, if that credit is greater than zero.\n\n The sale of a Bond is permitted only if one of the following is\n the case:\n * it is issued by the Bank.\n * it is issued by a player and would not cause the issuer\'s\n credit to exceed the Player Credit Limit in the currency in\n question as set forth in the Usuror\'s Budget.\n * it is issued by a non-Player entity other than the Bank and\n would not cause the issuer\'s credit to exceed the\n Non-Player Credit Limit in the currency in question as set\n forth in the Usuror\'s Budget.\n\n The Credit Limit for non-Bank currencies is 0.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4196 (neil), 26 July 2001'),(404759,'rcs','00000001.00000025',1993,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','The Land of Arcadia','The Land of Arcadia',997718438,'Rule 1993/0 (Power=2)\nThe Land of Arcadia\n\n Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the\n Map). The Map is a record kept by the Office of the Mapkeepor.\n\n The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units\n of Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is a unique instance\n of nonfungible Property specified by a pair of integers known as\n its Latitude and Longitude.\n\n Every unique pair of integers within the limits defined in the\n Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of\n Land. No other Units of Land may exist. Units of Land may only\n be created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and\n Longitude defined in the Rules.\n\n All values for Latitude must lie between -25 and +25, inclusive.\n All values for Longitude must lie between -25 and +25,\n inclusive.\n\n The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units\n of Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404760,'rcs','00000001.00000025',1994,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','Ownership of Land','Ownership of Land',997718438,'Rule 1994/0 (Power=2)\nOwnership of Land\n\n Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly\n changed belongs to an entity known as the Land Bureau (the\n Bureau).\n\n Land belonging to the Bureau is called Unclaimed Land. Land\n belonging to the Bank is called Public Land. Land belonging to\n any other entity is called Private Land. A Unit of Land for\n which a debt exists is considered to be In Escrow.\n\n The Mapkeepor is the Executor of the Land Bureau. The Mapkeepor\n is also a Limited Executor of the Bank, with the authority to\n satisfy debts of Land owed by the Bank to its creditors, and the\n authority to demand the payment of Land owed to the Bank by its\n debtors.\n\n The transfer of Unclaimed or Public Land to any entity must be\n specifically permitted by the Rules, or be performed by the\n explicit action of an instrument of Power 2 or greater, to be an\n authorized Transfer.\n\n Private Land may be transferred from its owner to any other\n entity by the owner\'s Executor. Any other transfer of Private\n Land must be performed by the explicit Action of an instrument\n of Power 2 or greater to be an authorized transfer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404761,'rcs','00000001.00000025',1995,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','Land Types','Land Types',997718438,'Rule 1995/0 (Power=2)\nLand Types\n\n Each Unit of Land shall have a single Land Type. Each Unit of\n Land that has a Land Type shall have either zero or one Land\n Subtypes. The Land Type or Subtype of a Unit may only be\n changed as specifically permitted by the Rules, or by an\n instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n The phrase \"Units of X\", where X is a Land Type (or Subtype)\n defined by the Rules, shall be considered a synonym for \"Units\n of Land that have Land Type (or Subtype) X\".\n\n When existent Land has not had its Type changed as explicitly\n permitted by the Rules, or has a Type that is not currently\n defined by the Rules, it shall be considered to have the Land\n Type of Aether. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, Units of\n Aether may not be transferred from the Bureau, or owned by any\n entity other than the Bureau. If Private or Public Land becomes\n Aether it shall be transferred to the Bureau as soon as\n possible.\n\n When existent Land has not had its Subtype changed as explicitly\n permitted by the Rules, or has a Subtype that is not currently\n defined by the Rules as permissible for its Land Type, it shall\n be considered to have no Subtype.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404762,'rcs','00000001.00000025',1996,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','The Mapkeepor','The Mapkeepor',997718438,'Rule 1996/0 (Power=1)\nThe Mapkeepor\n\n There exists the Office of Mapkeepor, whose responsibility is to\n be the recordkeeper for the Land of Arcadia. The Mapkeepor\n shall produce a Weekly Report including:\n\n (a) The Ownership and Land Type of all existent Land;\n (b) All changes in the Ownership and Land Type of existent\n Land since the most recent report;\n (c) The Location of all Entities or Instruments that have\n a defined Location.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404763,'rcs','00000001.00000025',1997,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','Defined Land Types and Subtypes','Defined Land Types and Subtypes',997718438,'Rule 1997/0 (Power=1)\nDefined Land Types and Subtypes\n\n In addition to Aether, the following Land Types are defined:\n (a) Wilderness;\n (b) Farmland;\n (c) Water;\n (d) Urbana.\n\n The following Land Subtypes are permissible for Units of\n Wilderness:\n (a) Mountans;\n (b) Hills;\n (c) Forest;\n (d) Desert;\n\n The following Land Subtypes are permissible for Units of\n Urbana:\n (a) City;\n (b) Road;\n (c) Aqueduct.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404764,'rcs','00000001.00000025',1998,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','Land Topology','Land Topology',997718438,'Rule 1998/0 (Power=1)\nLand Topology\n\n Two Units of Land are Adjacent if neither their Latitudes nor\n their Longitudes differ by more than one from each other.\n\n The Penguin Distance between two given Units of Land is the\n minimum number of Single Waddles required to Travel from one of\n the given Units to the other given Unit, where one Single Waddle\n is the Penguin Distance required to Travel from one Unit of Land\n to an Adjacent Unit of Land.\n\n Of a Land Unit:\n (1) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude\n greater by 1 is its Northern Neighbor.\n (2) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude less\n by 1 is its Southern Neighbor.\n (3) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude\n greater by 1 is its Eastern Neighbor.\n (4) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude less\n by 1 is its Western Neighbor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404765,'rcs','00000001.00000025',1999,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','Entity Location','Entity Location',997718438,'Rule 1999/0 (Power=1)\nEntity Location\n\n The following Entities shall each have a single defined Location\n corresponding to a single Latitude, Longitude pair within the\n limits set in the Rules for Latitude and Longitude on the Map of\n Arcadia:\n (a) Every Player;\n (b) Every Organization.\n No other Entity shall have a location unless it is defined in\n other Rules. The Location of an Entity may not be set or\n changed except as explicitly permitted by the Rules or an\n instrument of Power 1 or greater. If an Entity is specified by\n this Rule as having a defined Location, but its Location has not\n been explicity set or changed, its Location shall be Latitude 0,\n Longitude 0.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404766,'rcs','00000001.00000025',2000,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','Rule Location','Rule Location',997718438,'Rule 2000/0 (Power=1)\nRule Location\n\n The Rule Mapping is a Rules-defined calculation that maps\n a single integer (a Rule Number as defined elsewhere in the\n Rules) onto a single Latitude, Longitude pair within the limits\n of Latitude and Longitude on the Map of Arcadia.\n\n The Rule Mapping must be such that no two possible Rule Numbers\n between 101 and the Total Land Area of Arcadia are mapped to the\n same Latitude, Longitude pair.\n\n For any existent Rule, the Latitude and Longitude pair resulting\n from a Rule Mapping of the Rule\'s Number is the Rule\'s Location.\n A Rule\'s Location only changes if its Rule Number changes or if\n the Rule Mapping contained in this Rule changes.\n\n The Rule Mapping is defined by the following procedure:\n 1. The number 100 is subtracted from the Rule Number to\n calculate the number of Vulture Steps in the Rule Number\'s\n Vulture Journey.\n 2. The Latitude and Longitude of the Mapping shall be that of\n the Land Unit Visited when the final Vulture Step of the\n Rule Number\'s Vulture Journey is taken, where each Vulture\n Step in the Journey is taken as follows:\n\n (a) If no Vulture Steps have yet been taken in the\n Journey, by visiting the Land Unit with Latitude 0,\n Longitude 0; otherwise,\n (b) From the Land Unit most recently visited in the\n specific Vulture Journey:\n (i) If neither its Northern, nor Western, nor\n Southern, nor Eastern Neighbor has been visited\n in the Journey, by visiting its Eastern\n Neighbor; otherwise,\n (ii) If its Nothern, Western, and Southern Neighbors\n have all been visited, by visiting\n its Eastern Neighbor; otherwise,\n (iii) If its Western Neighbor has been visited but\n its Northern Neighbor has not, by visiting its\n Northern Neighbor, otherwise;\n (iv) If the Southern Neighbor has been visited but\n the Western Neightbor has not, by visiting the\n Western Neighbor, otherwise;\n (v) If the Eastern Neighbor has been visited but the\n Southern Neighbor has not, by visiting the\n Southern Neighbor, otherwise;\n (vi) If the Northern Neigbor has been visited but\n the Eastern Neighbor has not, by visiting the\n Eastern Neighbor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404767,'rcs','00000001.00000025',2001,'This Landscape, This Ruleset','This Landscape, This Ruleset','This Landscape, This Ruleset',997718438,'Rule 2001/0 (Power=1)\nThis Landscape, This Ruleset\n\n Upon the adoption of this Rule, if a number which maps onto\n the Latitude, Longitude pair of an existent Unit of Land using\n the Rule Mapping, is not an existent Rule Number, the Unit\'s\n Land Type shall be changed to Aether.\n\n Otherwise, the Land Type of the Unit of Land at the Latitude,\n Longitude representing each Rule Number\'s Location:\n\n (i) shall be changed to Land Type Wilderness if the Rule has a\n Power greater than or equal to 1, but less than 2.\n\n (ii) shall be changed to Land Type Farmland if the Rule has\n a Power greater than or equal to 2, but less than 3.\n\n (iii) shall be changed to Land Type Urbana if the Rule has\n a Power of 3 or more.\n\n If a Rule Change enacts a new Rule, repeals an existing Rule, or\n changes the Power of a Rule, the Land Type at the Rule\'s\n Location shall be changed as above. Land Types may still be\n changed by other Rules.'),(404768,'rcs','00000001.00000026',1841,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Granting Power of Attorney','Granting Power of Attorney',997967467,'Rule 1841/3 (Power=1)\nGranting Power of Attorney\n\n (a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered\n for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of\n Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified\n in this Rule.\n\n (b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following\n conditions are met:\n (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the\n Holder;\n (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or\n immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement,\n publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA;\n (3) the Holder is Active; and\n (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the\n reasons listed in (d).\n\n (c) The grant of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants\n eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder consents to\n the grant, or at the time specified by the Grantor,\n whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at\n which the grant of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no\n more than seven says from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later\n specifications are without effect for the purposes of this\n Rule.\n\n (d) The grant of PoA is withdrawn if:\n (1) the period of the grant specified by the Grantor\n expires;\n (2) the Grantor publically withdraws the grant;\n (3) the Grantor is deregistered;\n (4) the Holder is deregistered or goes On Hold; or\n (5) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three\n months.\n\n (e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other\n Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.\n\n (f) Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player who\n has granted PoA to another Player as described in this Rule\n shall become a Zombie while the grant of PoA is in effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404769,'rcs','00000001.00000027',1934,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4187 (neil), 18 July 2001','The Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy','The Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy',997967724,'Rule 1934/4 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker, Sanity, and Buying Democracy\n\n An Untainted Speaker may, with 3 Supporters, Sanitise an Interested\n Proposal which would otherwise be an Ordinary Proposal, for\n which the Voting Period has not yet concluded, and which has\n never been the subject of an Attempt to Democratise.\n\n If a Proposal is Sanitised before its Voting Period commences,\n said Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal, becomes a Sane Proposal,\n and has its Distribution Cost modified as required by other Rules.\n\n If a Proposal is Sanitised during its Voting Period, said\n Proposal is not modified until at least one Papyrus is publicly\n transferred to the Bank solely for this stated purpose by any\n Player during the Proposal\'s Voting Period. If this happens,\n the Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal, the Proposal becomes\n a Sane Proposal, and all votes thus far cast on the Proposal are\n cancelled. The Assessor shall announce that the Proposal has\n been successfully Sanitised; the Voting Period of the Proposal\n is extended to end seven days after this announcement.\n\n Any Player may, With Support, make an Attempt to Democratise an\n Interested Proposal which would otherwise be an Ordinary\n Proposal, and for which the Voting Period has not yet concluded.\n There is a Fee of 0.1 VEs for a Player other than an Untainted\n Speaker to make an Attempt to Democratise. This Fee must be\n paid publicly.\n\n Once an Attempt to Democratise a Proposal has been made, until\n the end of the Proposal\'s Voting Period, any Player may publicly\n transfer any number of VEs to the Bank with a clear, unambiguous\n statement that this transfer is made solely for the purpose of\n Democratising the Proposal, or solely for the purpose of keeping\n the Proposal Ordinary.\n\n At the end of the Voting Period, Democratisation succeeds if at\n least as many VEs have been publicly transferred to the Bank for\n Democratisating the Proposal as for keeping the Proposal\n Ordinary. The Assessor shall announce as soon as possible after\n the end of the Voting Period whether or not Democratisation of\n that Proposal has succeeded.\n\n If Democratisation does not succeed, the Voting Period is\n considered to have ended as usual. The Attempt does not in any\n way modify the Proposal in question.\n\n If Democratisation succeeds, the Proposal becomes a Democratic\n Proposal, and all Votes thus far cast on the Proposal are\n cancelled. The Voting Period for that Proposal is considered\n not to have ended (except for the purposes of this Attempt to\n Democratise), and is extended to end seven days after the\n Assessor\'s announcement that Democratisation has succeeded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 26 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4049 (Elysion), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4145 (Ian), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4187 (neil), 18 July 2001'),(404770,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1992,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4202 (neil), 28 August 2001','Monks','Monks',999265631,'Rule 1992/1 (Power=1)\nMonks\n\n A player is Sanctimonious if e satisfies all of the following\n conditiions:\n\n 1. E is not a Zombie.\n 2. E is not a Zombie Master.\n 3. E possesses less than four times the Basic Officer Salary of\n Stems.\n 4. E does not possess any Voting Entitlements.\n 5. E is a Senator.\n 6. E is not the Executor or Limited Executor of any entity other\n than emself, the Bank, or Monastery which possesses Voting\n Entitlements, Zombies, or Stems.\n 7. E is Immaculate.\n\n A Sanctimonious player becomes a Monk by notifying the Registrar\n that e becomes a Monk, provided that e has been Sanctimonious\n for at least one week. The condition of being a Monk is revoked\n upon the beginning of a Nomic Week after the dissatisfaction of\n any of the aforementioned conditions for at least 48 hours, if\n and only if a player reports this dissatisfaction to the\n Registrar before the beginning of the week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4202 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404771,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1951,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001','Papyri','Papyri',999265631,'Rule 1951/2 (Power=1)\nPapyri\n\n Papyri (singular Papyrus) are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of\n Papyri is 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Papyri is the Promotor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404772,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1954,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001','Distribution of Papyri','Distribution of Papyri',999265631,'Rule 1954/4 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Papyri\n\n As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the\n Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must\n always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may\n auction as many Papyri as e wishes.\n\n The items to be auctioned are individual Papyri, and thus\n the number of items is equal to the number of Papyri to be\n Auctioned. The Auctioneer shall be the Promotor, and the Auction\n shall be conducted in Stems. Only Scribes may bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4056 (t), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404773,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1922,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',999265631,'Rule 1922/2 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001'),(404774,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1985,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001','The Usuror\'s Budget','The Usuror\'s Budget',999265631,'Rule 1985/2 (Power=1)\nThe Usuror\'s Budget\n\n The Usuror shall have a Budget. The Usuror\'s Budget shall\n consist of the following items:\n\n (i) The Basic Fee for issuing Bonds. This Fee shall be\n expressed as a multiple of the Basic Officer Salary and\n shall be an integral multiple of 0.1, not less than 0, and\n not greater than 4.\n\n (ii) The purchase rates at which the Bank will buy Bonds in\n each Bank Currency. These rates are expressed as\n percentages, in the range 0% to 100% inclusive. Each\n purchase rate applies only to a single combination of face\n value and time to maturity. Different rates may apply to\n different such combinations. Any combination for which no\n rate is specified has a purchase rate of 0%.\n\n (iii) The Player Credit Limit for Stems, which is a multiple of\n the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10 inclusive.\n\n (iv) The Non-Player Entity Credit Limit for Stems, which is a\n multiple of the Basic Officer Salary, between 0 and 10\n inclusive.\n\n (v) The Player Credit Limit for each Bank currency, other than\n Stems, which is a multiple of the MUQ of that Currency\n between 0 and 2000 inclusive.\n\n (vi) The Non-Player Credit Limit for each Bank currency, other\n than Stems, which is a multiple of the MUQ of that\n Currency between 0 and 2000 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4196 (neil), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404775,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1945,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001','Voting Entitlements','Voting Entitlements',999265631,'Rule 1945/2 (Power=1)\nVoting Entitlements\n\n Voting Entitlements are a Bank Currency. The Recordkeepor of\n Voting Entitlements is the Assessor. The MUQ of Voting\n Entitlements is 0.001.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404776,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1946,'Amended(4) by Proposal 1946 (neil), 28 August 2001','Distribution of Voting Entitlements','Distribution of Voting Entitlements',999265631,'Rule 1946/4 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Voting Entitlements\n\n The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is equal\n to the number of registered Players.\n\n The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is the\n total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities other\n than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting\n Entitlements owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off to\n Winning Bidders in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions but not\n yet paid for.\n\n The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the\n IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL,\n the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.\n\n Whenever it occurs that the Voting Entitlement Surplus is\n positive and no Auction of Voting Entitlements is already in\n progress, the Assessor shall auction off the surplus Voting\n Entitlements. The items to be auctioned are lots of 0.1 VEs; the\n number of items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus\n multiplied by 10, rounded down to the nearest integer. The\n Auctioneer shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be\n conducted in Stems. Only Politicians may bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4058 (Peekee), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4117 (Blob), Mar. 6 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1946 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404777,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1435,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001','Definition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate','Definition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate',999265631,'Rule 1435/15 (Power=1)\nDefinition of Indulgences, Blots and Immaculate\n\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ)\n of Indulgences is 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is\n the Herald.\n\n A Blot is a stain on a Player\'s record, recorded by the Herald.\n\n Whenever the Rules state that a Player gains or is assessed some\n number of Blots, and specify a method of reporting that gain or\n assessment to the Herald, then, as soon as possible after\n receiving such a notification, the Herald shall record an\n increase of that amount (or, if the affected Player is Unready,\n of one half (rounded to the nearest integer) of that amount) in\n the number of Blots staining the affected Player.\n\n Blots are expunged from a Player\'s record when:\n (1) an entity transfers to the Bank some number of Indulgences,\n specifying in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is\n for the purpose of expunging the Blots of some Player; a\n number of Blots equal to the number of Indulgences\n transferred are expunged from the Player specified, or all\n of that Player\'s Blots if more Indulgences are transferred\n than that Player has (and the excess indulgences returned\n to the transferor); or\n (2) the Rules otherwise establish some method by which Blots\n are to be expunged, provided that such method must include\n a requirement of notice to the Herald of the expungement\n and such notice is actually sent to the Herald.\n\n A player with zero Blots staining eir record is said to be\n Immaculate.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1457, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3569 (Zefram), Oct. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), Feb. 15 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4003 (t), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404778,'rcs','00000001.00000028',1712,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',999265631,'Rule 1712/12 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by\n Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less\n the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other\n entities during that same Nomic Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the\n number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that\n number shall be allowed to stand.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. In addition, the Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and\n the Auction shall be conducted in Stems with only Acolytes being\n allowed to bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001'),(404779,'rcs','00000001.00000029',1979,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4206 (neil), 3 September 2001','Treasuror\'s Moratorium on Bond Purchases','Treasuror\'s Moratorium on Bond Purchases',999871371,'Rule 1979/1 (Power=1)\nTreasuror\'s Moratorium on Bond Purchases\n\n The Treasuror may, with Support, place or remove a moratorium on\n bond purchases in any specific Bank currency. Once a moratorium\n has been placed, the Bank may not purchase any Bonds with a face\n value in that currency, until that moratorium is removed.\n\n The Treasuror must report any moratoria currently in place in\n eir Monthly Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4206 (neil), 3 September 2001'),(404780,'rcs','00000001.00000029',2002,'Created by Proposal 4206 (neil), 3 September 2001','Bond Fraud','Bond Fraud',999871371,'Rule 2002/0 (Power=1)\nBond Fraud\n\n A Player who sells to the Bank a Bond issued by an entity:\n * of which e is an Executor, which e is in collusion with, or\n an Executor of which e is in collusion with, and\n * that e believes will not, at the date of maturity, or does\n not, if the Bond is already mature, have funds to cover\n redemption of said Bond,\n commits the Class 5 Crime of Bond Fraud. If it is judged that a\n player has committed Bond Fraud, the Judge shall order that all\n unlawful gains from said instance of Bond Fraud be disgorged.\n\n If the Executor of the issuer of a Bond used to commit Bond\n Fraud is not the Player who was charged with Bond Fraud, and\n said Executor knew that the Bond in question would be used for\n such a purpose, e commits the Class 4 Crime of Conspiracy to\n Commit Bond Fraud.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4206 (neil), 3 September 2001'),(404781,'rcs','00000001.00000029',2003,'Created by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001','Moving in Arcadia','Moving in Arcadia',999871371,'Rule 2003/0 (Power=1)\nMoving in Arcadia\n\n Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units to\n move about in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not\n transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.\n\n A player makes a Move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location\n (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the\n Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is\n valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to the Destination. So\n long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a\n single week.\n\n The Mapkeepor\'s Report shall list, for each Player:\n * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the last week\n * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the current week\n\n Players may expend:\n * 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Mountains.\n * 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Hills.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Forest or Desert.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness with no Subtype.\n * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Farmland.\n * 1 Movement Unit to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Urbana.\n\n A player may also expend 10 Movement Units to Explore, by\n notifying the Mapkeepor that e does so. If a Player Explores,\n all units of Aether within a Penguin Distance of 2 from the\n Player\'s current location are assigned a new Land Type and\n possibly Subtype. For each unit of Aether affected, there is a:\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Winderness/Mountains;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Winderness/Hills;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Winderness/Forest;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Winderness/Desert;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype;\n * 0.30 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.\n\n The random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by\n the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the\n beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be\n indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.\n\n Moves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are\n valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. Unless explicity\n permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001'),(404782,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1976,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Mentor\'s Bonus','Mentor\'s Bonus',1000481987,'Rule 1976/2 (Power=1)\nMentor\'s Bonus\n\n In the four weeks immediately after eir Grace Period ends, a\n Player can award a Mentor\'s Bonus to any other player e deems to\n have been most helpful to em as a new Player. E can only make\n one such award.\n\n The award is made by public announcement. Upon such an\n announcement the Bank shall incur a debt in Stems to the named\n Mentor equal to the New Player Award for Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4143 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4172 (root), 26 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404783,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1042,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1000481987,'Rule 1042/16 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more\n than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a\n public forum, that player is Noisy.\n\n A player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused\n another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy\n player to become Quiet by sending a message to a public forum in\n which e identifies the player and states that e causes that\n player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks or has been Inactive continuously for\n two months, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any player may publicly allege that some other player has\n abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only\n if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation\n that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall\n publicly confirm or deny the allegation.\n\n If the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall\n occur in order:\n\n (i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15\n Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and\n the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;\n\n (ii) the Silent player is deregistered.\n\n The Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as\n of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming\n the allegation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404784,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1755,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','No Non-Player Responsibilities','No Non-Player Responsibilities',1000481987,'Rule 1755/6 (Power=1)\nNo Non-Player Responsibilities\n\n Whenever a player is deregistered, e ceases to be a candidate,\n officer, judge, or in general to occupy any role or position to\n which the rules assign any duties or powers. No one who is not\n registered may occupy such a role or position, unless at least\n one of the rules defining the role or position explicitly\n indicate it may be occupied by a nonplayer.\n\n Bearing a Patent Title shall not be deemed to be occupying a\n role or position.\n\n This rule shall not act to prevent a nonplayer from registering,\n calling for judgement, or otherwise doing things that nonplayers\n are generally able to do.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3622 (elJefe), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposl 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404785,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1841,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Granting Power of Attorney','Granting Power of Attorney',1000481987,'Rule 1841/4 (Power=1)\nGranting Power of Attorney\n\n (a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered\n for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of\n Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified\n in this Rule.\n\n (b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following\n conditions are met:\n (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the\n Holder;\n (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or\n immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement,\n publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA;\n (3) the Holder is Active; and\n (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the\n reasons listed in (d).\n\n (c) The grant of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants\n eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder consents to\n the grant, or at the time specified by the Grantor,\n whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at\n which the grant of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no\n more than seven says from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later\n specifications are without effect for the purposes of this\n Rule.\n\n (d) The grant of PoA is withdrawn if:\n (1) the period of the grant specified by the Grantor\n expires;\n (2) the Grantor publically withdraws the grant;\n (3) the Grantor is deregistered;\n (4) the Holder is deregistered or goes On Hold; or\n (5) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three\n months.\n\n (e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other\n Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.\n\n (f) Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player who\n has granted PoA to another Player as described in this rule\n shall be deregistered while the grant of PoA is in effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404786,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1992,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Monks','Monks',1000481987,'Rule 1992/2 (Power=1)\nMonks\n\n A player is Sanctimonious if e satisfies all of the following\n conditions:\n\n 1. E possesses less than four times the Basic Officer Salary of\n Stems.\n 2. E does not possess any Voting Entitlement.s\n 3. E is a Senator.\n 4. E is not the Executor or Limited Executor of any entity other\n than emself, the Bank, or Monastery which possesses Voting\n Entitlements or Stems.\n 5. E is Immaculate.\n\n A player who has been Sanctimonious continuously for the most\n recent week becomes a Monk by notifying the Registrar that e\n becomes a Monk. Whenever a Monk has not satisfied all\n conditions for Sanctimony for at least 48 hours, any player may\n report this to the Registrar. On the Registrar\'s public\n confirmation of this report, the Monk ceases to be a Monk.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4202 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404787,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1555,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Electees and Removal from Office','Electees and Removal from Office',1000481987,'Rule 1555/7 (Power=1)\nElectees and Removal from Office\n\n A Player who wins an Election for an Office, or is installed\n into Office by a Proposal, becomes the Electee to that Office,\n as well as its holder.\n\n When the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office, e\n ceases to be the Electee to that Office, but continues to hold\n the Office.\n\n When the Electee to an Office is removed from that Office, e\n ceases to be Electee to that Office. Furthermore, if the Electee\n currently holds the Office, the Speaker becomes the holder of\n that Office, unless another Rule provides that a different\n Player is to hold the Office.\n\n When a non-Electee is removed from an Office and there is an\n Electee to that Office, then the Electee becomes the holder of\n the Office. If there is no Electee, the Office is held by the\n Speaker.\n\n If a Player goes On Hold, deregisters, or is deregistered, e is\n removed from all Offices e holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2577, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2781 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3898 (Wes), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404788,'rcs','00000001.00000030',559,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','The Registrar','The Registrar',1000481987,'Rule 559/17 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is\n to maintain a list of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and\n eir Term of Service); and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404789,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1908,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Abandoned Property','Abandoned Property',1000481987,'Rule 1908/4 (Power=1)\nAbandoned Property\n\n Property possessed by an entity (the Dissolute) without a Prime\n Executor is deemed to be abandoned as long as it is possessed by\n the Dissolute.\n\n The Notary is a Limited Executor of each Dissolute, on behalf of\n whom e may:\n\n (1) transfer property owned by em to any creditor of any of eir\n debts, for the purpose of making partial or complete payment\n on those debts;\n\n (2) forgive in part or in full any debts owed to em;\n\n (3) Without Objection, transfer property owned by em to the\n Bank, unless the Dissolute was a player before eir property\n was abandoned; or\n\n (4) transfer property to satisfy the Dissolute\'s Will, provided\n that the Dissolute was not Silent when e lost eir Prime\n Executor and all debts for that type of property that the\n Dissolute had when e lost eir Prime Executor have been\n satisfied.\n\n If any entity possessing property dies, dissolves, or otherwise\n ceases to exist, that entity shall be deemed to exist for as\n long as e possesses property.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3930 (Murphy), Oct. 17 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404790,'rcs','00000001.00000030',2006,'Created by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Looting Auctions','Looting Auctions',1000481987,'Rule 2006/0 (Power=1)\nLooting Auctions\n\n As soon as possible after a player becomes a Dissolute, the\n Notary shall initiate an Auction for the privilege of Looting\n the Corpse of the Dissolute. Once a Looting Auction begins, the\n Notary may not transfer property on behalf of the Dissolute\n until either the Auction ends without any winning bids or the\n winning bidder defaults on eir bid or loses eir privilege to\n Loot the Corpse of that Dissolute.\n\n Looting Auctions shall follow the default procedure for Auctions\n with the following modifications:\n\n (1) The Auctioneer shall be the Notary.\n (2) The Auction Currency shall be Indulgences.\n (3) The Starting Price shall be the number of Blots the\n Dissolute had when e became a Dissolute, or one Indulgence\n if the Dissolute was Immaculate.\n (4) The Auction shall be for a temporary privilege, not for an\n item, and so no debt of items to the winning Bidder when eir\n bill is paid shall be incurred.\n\n If there are no winning bids for the privilege of Looting the\n Corpse of that Dissolute, the Notary must, as soon as possible\n after the end of the Looting Auction, transfer all the\n Dissolute\'s property to the Bank.\n\n When the winning bidder pays eir bill from the Looting Auction,\n e gains the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that Dissolute; e\n becomes a Limited Executor of the Dissolute, with the authority\n to transfer property from the Dissolute to emself. One week\n after e gains this privilege, e loses it, and ceases to be a\n Limited Executor of the Dissolute. If the Dissolute still has\n property after the winning bidder loses this privilege, the\n Notary must transfer the Dissolute\'s remaining property to the\n Bank as soon as possible afterward.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404791,'rcs','00000001.00000030',1910,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001','Stems','Stems',1000481987,'Rule 1910/4 (Power=1)\nStems\n\n Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.\n\n Transfers of Stems are permitted only if at least one of the\n following is true:\n\n (1) either the transferor or the transferee is the Bank;\n (2) the Stems are to be transferred from a Dissolute to a player\n who has the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that\n Dissolute; or\n (3) the transferor is an Organization, and the Stems to be\n transferred had not been held continuously by the\n Organization for one week.\n\n All other transfers of Stems are prohibited.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001'),(404792,'rcs','00000001.00000030',2004,'Created by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001','Land Auctions','Land Auctions',1000481987,'Rule 2004/0 (Power=1)\nLand Auctions\n\n As soon as possible after the tenth day of each Month, the\n Mapkeepor shall, if the number of units of Land held by players\n is less than one half the total number of units of Land, auction\n a number of units of Land not to exceed 10. The units of Land\n to be Auctioned are:\n * if there exist at least 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: any 10 such Units of Land, to\n be chosen by the Mapkeepor;\n * if there exist fewer than 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: all such Units.\n\n There shall be a separate Auction for each Unit of Land under\n consideration. These Auctions shall be conducted concurrently.\n For each of these Auctions:\n * The item to be Auctioned is the piece of Land in question.\n * The Procedure to be used is the Vickrey Auction.\n * The Auctioneer shall be the Mapkeepor.\n * The Auction shall be conducted in Indulgences.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001'),(404793,'rcs','00000001.00000030',2005,'Created by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001','Tolls','Tolls',1000481987,'Rule 2005/0 (Power=1)\nTolls\n\n A Player who owns Land may impose a Toll on any (currently\n un-Tolled) piece of Land e owns. To do so, e must pay a Fee of\n 0.2 Indulgences and clearly and unambiguously identify the Unit\n of Land in question, as well as the amount of the Toll for that\n Unit of Land.\n\n A Toll is a number of VEs, Indulgences, or Papyri. No Unit of\n Land may have a Toll in other currencies, or in more than one of\n these currencies. No Toll shall be greater than 200 times the\n MUQ of the currency in which it is denominated. If a Player\n (the Tollee) Moves into a Unit of Land which is at the time\n owned by another Player (the Toller), and for which there is at\n the time a Toll established, e (the Tollee) is said to be In\n Toll to the Unit of Land in question, for the amount of the Toll\n on that unit of land (at the time of the Move)\n\n The owner (Toller) of a Unit of Land may notify the Mapkeepor\n that e believes a Player has been In Toll to a Unit of Land\n owned by em; to do so, e submits a Notification of Toll, which\n must unambiguously describe the Unit of Land in question, the\n amount of the Toll, and the Player (alleged Tollee) in question.\n The alleged Move must have occurred within the past week. A\n Player may submit only one such Notification for a given Unit of\n Land in a single week, and may not submit substantially the same\n Notification two weeks in a row. Any Notification of Toll\n contrary to this Rule is invalid and shall be discarded.\n\n If, in the Mapkeepor\'s determination, the alleged Tollee was in\n fact, in the week before the Notification, In Toll to the\n specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, the Mapkeepor\n shall confirm the Toll by publicly informing the Tollee and the\n Toller. The Tollee then incurs to the Toller a debt equal to\n the Toll specified in the Notification. If, in the Mapkeepor\'s\n determination, the alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the\n specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e shall deny\n the Notification by informing the Toller of eir determination.\n\n If the Mapkeepor fails to respond to a valid Notification of\n Toll, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Looking the Other Way. If\n the Mapkeepor confirms a Notification of Toll when in fact the\n alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for\n the specified amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3\n Crime of Conspiracy to Commit Highway Robbery. If the Mapkeeper\n denies a Notification of Toll when in fact the alleged Tollee\n was In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified\n amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3 Crime of Not\n Feeding the Toll Under the Bridge.\n\n A Player may remove a Toll from any Tolled Unit of Land e owns.\n If a Player loses possession of a Unit of Land, all Tolls\n imposed on that Unit by that Player are removed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001'),(404794,'rcs','00000001.00000032',911,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1001955409,'Rule 911/9 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration, and this restriction does not\n prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the\n CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (ROnald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001'),(404795,'rcs','00000001.00000032',1998,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4217 (Syllepsis), 29 September 2001','Land Topology','Land Topology',1001955409,'Rule 1998/1 (Power=1)\nLand Topology\n\n Two Units of Land are Adjacent if neither their Latitudes nor\n their Longitudes differ by more than one from each other.\n\n The Penguin Distance between two given Units of Land is the\n minimum number of Single Waddles required to Travel from one of\n the given Units to the other given Unit, where one Single Waddle\n is the Penguin Distance required to Travel from one Unit of Land\n to an Adjacent Unit of Land.\n\n Of a Land Unit:\n (1) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude\n greater by 1 is its Northern Neighbor.\n (2) the Land Unit with the same Longitude and a Latitude less\n by 1 is its Southern Neighbor.\n (3) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude\n greater by 1 is its Eastern Neighbor.\n (4) the Land Unit with the same Latitude and a Longitude less\n by 1 is its Western Neighbor.\n\n Two Units of Land are said to be Connected by a specific Type or\n Subtype of Land if it is possible to travel from the first Unit\n to the second by Waddling only over Land of that specific Type\n or Subtype.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4217 (Syllepsis), 29 September 2001'),(404796,'rcs','00000001.00000032',2003,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001','Moving in Arcadia','Moving in Arcadia',1001955409,'Rule 2003/1 (Power=1)\nMoving in Arcadia\n\n Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units to\n move about in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not\n transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.\n\n A player makes a Move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location\n (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the\n Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is\n valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to the Destination. So\n long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a\n single week.\n\n The Mapkeepor\'s Report shall list, for each Player:\n * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the last week\n * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the current week\n\n Players may expend:\n * 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Mountains.\n * 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Hills.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Forest or Desert.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness with no Subtype.\n * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Farmland.\n * 1 Movement Unit to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Urbana.\n\n A player may also expend 10 Movement Units to Explore, by\n notifying the Mapkeepor that e does so. If a Player Explores,\n all units of Aether within a Penguin Distance of 2 from the\n Player\'s current location are assigned a new Land Type and\n possibly Subtype. For each unit of Aether affected, there is a:\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Mountains;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Hills;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Forest;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Desert;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype;\n * 0.30 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.\n\n The random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by\n the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the\n beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be\n indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.\n\n Moves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are\n valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. Unless explicity\n permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001'),(404797,'rcs','00000001.00000032',2007,'Created by Proposal 4217 (Syllepsis), 29 September 2001','Developing Land','Developing Land',1001955409,'Rule 2007/0 (Power=1)\nDeveloping Land\n\n A Player who owns a Unit of Land and is Located at that Unit of\n Land may change the Land Type and/or Subtype in the following\n manner:\n\n a) If the Unit of Land is of Type Wilderness, e may change that\n Unit of Land to Type Farmland by expending 5 Movement Points\n and paying a Fee of:\n\n i) 0.1 BOS in Stems, rounded up, if the Unit is of\n Subtype Forest;\n\n ii) 0.25 BOS in Stems, rounded up, if the Unit is of\n Subtype Desert; or\n\n iii) 1 BOS in Stems, rounded up, if the Unit is of\n Subtype Mountain.\n\n b) If the Unit of Land is of Type Farmland, e may change that\n Unit of Land to Type Urbana by expending 5 Movement Points\n and paying a Fee of:\n\n i) 0.1 BOS in Stems, rounded up, in which case the Unit\n will have Subtype Road;\n\n ii) 0.25 BOS in Stems, rounded up, in which case the Unit\n will have Subtype Aqueduct; or\n\n iii) if there are no Units of subtype City within a Penguin\n Distance of 3 from the Unit, The Unit is Connected to\n a Unit of Water by Aqueduct, and there are at least 8\n Units of Farmland within a Penguin Distance of 2 from\n the Unit, 1 BOS in Stems, in which case the Unit will\n have Subtype City. In this case the Player is required\n to give a unique name to the City.\n\n Units affected by this Rule take on the new Land Type at the\n beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be\n indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4217 (Syllepsis), 29 September 2001'),(404798,'rcs','00000001.00000032',2008,'Created by Proposal 4217 (Syllepsis), 29 September 2001','Arcadian Cities','Arcadian Cities',1001955409,'Rule 2008/0 (Power=1)\nArcadian Cities\n\n A Unit of Land of Subtype City may be referred to as just a\n City, Arcadian City, or by its unique name, if any.\n\n The Unit of Land at (0,0) shall always remain a City. This city\n shall be named Tripolis, the Capital of Arcadia, and shall\n always be Public Land, owned by the Bank. This takes precedence\n over any Rule to the contrary.\n\n Any City other than Tripolis ceases to be a City and becomes a\n Unit of Land of Subtype Road whenever:\n\n a) It is not Connected to Water by Aqueduct; or\n\n b) There are less than 8 Units of Farmland within a Penguin\n Distance of 2 from the City.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4217 (Syllepsis), 29 September 2001'),(404799,'rcs','00000001.00000033',1664,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Rebellion','Rebellion',1003242818,'Rule 1664/19 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall pay out 40 Stems to each Rebellious\n player\n - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the\n Oligarchy\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - The Registrar shall levy a 75% Indulgence tax. For this\n levy, the Bearor of the Patent Title \"Robespierre\" is\n tax-exempt.\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status, Oligarchy membership, and Indulgence holdings of players\n at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404800,'rcs','00000001.00000033',1955,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy',1003242818,'Rule 1955/4 (Power=1)\nThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n\n (a) There is an Office of Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO),\n whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Oligarchs.\n\n (b) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\'s Report shall consist of\n a list of all Oligarchs and a list of all Elder Oligarchs\n (if any).\n\n (c) The GWotO shall have a budget containing the Oligarchy\n Auction Rate, which is an integer between 1 and 4\n inclusive. The GWotO may amend eir budget Without 2\n Objections from Oligarchs. There is an Office of Grand\n Warden of the Oligarchy, whose responsibility it is to\n conduct Auctions for positions in the Oligarchy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404801,'rcs','00000001.00000033',1932,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','The Oligarchy','The Oligarchy',1003242818,'Rule 1932/4 (Power=2)\nThe Oligarchy\n\n (a) The Oligarchy is the set of all Players who are Oligarchs.\n\n (b) An Oligarch may resign eir position in the Oligarchy by\n publicly announcing that e does so. Upon such an\n announcement, e ceases to be an Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404802,'rcs','00000001.00000033',2009,'Created by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Elder Oligarchs','Elder Oligarchs',1003242818,'Rule 2009/0 (Power=2)\nElder Oligarchs\n\n (a) Upon the creation of this Rule, all Players who were Low,\n Middle, or High Oligarchs when the Proposal creating this\n Rule was adopted become Oligarchs. Each of these Players is\n an Elder Oligarch until e ceases to be an Oligarch or until\n e has been an Elder Oligarch for 3 months.\n\n (b) The Rulekeepor may repeal this Rule Without Objection if\n there are no Elder Oligarchs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404803,'rcs','00000001.00000033',1963,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1003242818,'Rule 1963/1 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is On Hold;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker or the Speaker-Elect; or\n (4) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as\n possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by\n correctly announcing that at least one of the above\n conditions has arisen for that Player. The named Player\n ceases to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404804,'rcs','00000001.00000033',1936,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy',1003242818,'Rule 1936/7 (Power=2)\nAuctioning Positions in the Oligarchy\n\n (a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n GWotO shall auction off a number of Oligarchy positions\n equal to the Oligarchy Auction Rate. The GWotO shall conduct\n the Auction according to one of the Rules-defined Auction\n Procedures, with the following modifications:\n\n (1) Auction Currency: the Auction Currency is Stems.\n\n (2) Bidders: Only non-Oligarchy Politicians who are eligible\n to be Oligarchs may bid.\n\n (3) If a bidder becomes an Oligarch or becomes ineligible to\n be an Oligarch, then all eir bids in the Auction are\n cancelled.\n\n (4) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids\n are the N largest valid uncancelled bids made by\n different Players who are not Oligarchs, where N is the\n number of positions being Auctioned.\n\n (5) Defaulting: a winning bidder has one week from the time\n e is billed by the Auctioneer for eir winning bid in\n which to pay the bill. If the bill remains unpaid for\n more than one week, then the winning bidder is\n considered to have defaulted. In that case, the\n Auctioneer shall forgive the debt and penalise the\n defaulting bidder 2 Blots.\n\n (b) When a winning bidder pays the bill for eir winning bid in\n the Auction, e becomes an Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4073 (Elysion), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404805,'rcs','00000001.00000033',2010,'Created by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Oligarchy Upkeep','Oligarchy Upkeep',1003242818,'Rule 2010/0 (Power=2)\nOligarchy Upkeep\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the GWotO\n shall bill each non-Elder Oligarch 0.1 VEs. The GWotO shall remove\n from the Oligarchy any Oligarch who does not pay a debt resulting\n from this Rule within 7 days of the announcement of such a debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404806,'rcs','00000001.00000033',1449,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','The Assessor','The Assessor',1003242818,'Rule 1449/12 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n (a) There exists the Office of Assessor, whose responsibility it\n is to receive and announce the results of Votes on\n Proposals.\n\n (b) The Assessor shall include the Voting Power of each entity\n on Ordinary and Democratic Proposals in eir Weekly Report. E\n may exclude entities whose Voting Power is zero on both\n Ordinary and Democratic Proposal from the Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404807,'rcs','00000001.00000033',1950,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Voting Power','Voting Power',1003242818,'Rule 1950/2 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n\n (1) An Oligarch: one;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n\n (1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e\n possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots\n e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of:\n (a) for an Oligarch, two;\n (b) for a non-Oligarch, five.\n (2) The Bank: zero;\n (3) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power on Ordinary and\n Democratic Proposals at the beginning of each Week shall be\n in effect for all Proposals distributed during that\n Week. However, if a Proposal is made Democratic after it has\n been distributed, the Voting Power of each entity for that\n Proposal is redetermined at the time the Proposal is made\n Democratic.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n up to the limit determined by that entity\'s Voting Power on\n that Proposal, with the exception that no Player may vote on\n an Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e\n casts eir vote. An entity may cast its votes in any\n combination e wishes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404808,'rcs','00000001.00000034',1974,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 22 November 2001','Restriction on Minting of Bank Currencies by the Bank','Restriction on Minting of Bank Currencies by the Bank',1007351099,'Rule 1974/1 (Power=1)\nRestriction on Minting of Bank Currencies by the Bank\n\n The Bank, by the Treasuror, may Mint new units of a Bank\n Currency only as follows:\n\n (a) At any time, Without Objection, unless the Currency to be\n Minted is Stems.\n\n (b) In the event that the Voting Entitlement Surplus exceeds the\n Bank\'s holdings of VEs, a number of VEs not to exceed the\n difference between the Voting Entitlement Surplus and the\n Bank\'s Holdings of VEs, with Two Supporters.\n\n The Bank may not otherwise Mint new units of a Bank Currency\n except through the mechanism set forth in this Rule.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 22 November 2001'),(404809,'rcs','00000001.00000034',1596,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001','Debt','Debt',1007351099,'Rule 1596/7 (Power=1)\nDebt\n\n (a) A \"debt\" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one\n entity (the \"debtor\") to make a transfer of one or more\n Properties to some other entity (the \"creditor\").\n\n (b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to\n inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor.\n If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted,\n the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is\n posted.\n\n (c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is\n deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the\n creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of\n multiple transfers).\n\n (d) A debt is forgiven when the creditor of a debt sends a\n notice to the debtor that e is forgiving the debt.\n Forgiveness may be for the entire debt or for any part\n thereof. The effect forgiving a debt is as if the debtor\n had made a payment on the debt for the portion forgiven,\n except that no transfer of property takes place thereby.\n\n (e) An entity which receives Property as the result of an\n unauthorized transfer incurs a debt for the transferred\n Property to the entity that made the transfer.\n\n (f) If two entities are each others\' debtor, and all or part of\n their debts to each other are for the same quantity (equal\n portions) of the same fungible Property, then a public\n announcement of this mutual debt by either entity will have\n the effect of satisfying the equal portions of the debts for\n both debtors as in (c) above.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4037 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001'),(404810,'rcs','00000001.00000034',2011,'Created by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001','Stems Weather','Stems Weather',1007351099,'Rule 2011/0 (Power=1)\nStems Weather\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n Treasuror shall randomly Determine the Weather for the month.\n The Weather can be one of either Foul, Fair, or Plenty, and\n shall be determined using the following probabilities:\n 0.20 Foul.\n 0.30 Fair.\n 0.20 Plenty.\n 0.30 Same as the previous month.\n\n When the Treasuror posts eir Determination of the Weather for a\n month, the following events shall occur in the listed sequence\n immediately after the Weather is Determined:\n\n (a) A number of Stems in the Bank\'s possession, equal to\n the number of Players in the game multiplied by the\n Minimum Income, shall be Destroyed. If this value is\n greater than the number of Stems in the Possession of\n the Bank, all the Stems in the Possession of the Bank\n shall be Destroyed instead.\n (b) A number of Stems shall be Created in the Bank\'s\n Possession, equal to the number Destroyed in (a) above\n multiplied by:\n 0.50 if the Weather is Foul;\n 1.00 if the Weather is Fair;\n 1.50 if the Weather is Plenty.\n\n The Treasuror shall announce the number of Stems Created and\n Destroyed by this Rule in the message in which e announces the\n Weather.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001'),(404811,'rcs','00000001.00000034',2003,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001','Moving in Arcadia','Moving in Arcadia',1007351099,'Rule 2003/2 (Power=1)\nMoving in Arcadia\n\n Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units to\n move about in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not\n transferrable, and do not persist from one week to the next.\n\n A player makes a Move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location\n (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the\n Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is\n valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to the Destination. So\n long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a\n single week.\n\n The Mapkeepor\'s Report shall list, for each Player:\n * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the last week\n * the Player\'s location at the beginning of the current week\n\n Players may expend:\n * 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Mountains.\n * 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Hills.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Forest or Desert.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness with no Subtype.\n * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Farmland.\n * 1 Movement Unit to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Urbana.\n\n A player may also expend 10 Movement Units to Explore, by\n notifying the Mapkeepor that e does so. If a Player Explores,\n all units of Aether within a Penguin Distance of 2 from the\n Player\'s current location are assigned a new Land Type and\n possibly Subtype. For each unit of Aether affected, there is a:\n * 0.15 probability it becomes the same type and subtype\n as the land at the location of the exploring Player;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Mountains;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Hills;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Forest;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Desert;\n * 0.05 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.\n\n The random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by\n the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the\n beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be\n indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.\n\n Moves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are\n valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. Unless explicity\n permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001'),(404812,'rcs','00000001.00000034',2004,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001','Land Auctions','Land Auctions',1007351099,'Rule 2004/1 (Power=1)\nLand Auctions\n\n As soon as possible after the tenth day of each Month, the\n Mapkeepor shall, if the number of units of Land held by players\n is less than one half the total number of units of Land, auction\n a number of units of Land not to exceed 10. The units of Land\n to be Auctioned are:\n * if there exist at least 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: any 10 such Units of Land, to\n be chosen by the Mapkeepor;\n * if there exist fewer than 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: all such Units.\n\n There shall be a separate Auction for each Unit of Land under\n consideration. These Auctions shall be conducted concurrently.\n For each of these Auctions:\n * The item to be Auctioned is the piece of Land in question.\n * The Procedure to be used is the Vickrey Auction.\n * The Auctioneer shall be the Mapkeepor.\n * The Default Auction Currency shall be Indulgences; however,\n the Auctioneer may select a different Bank Currency with 2\n Supporters.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001'),(404813,'rcs','00000001.00000034',2005,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4228 (root), 22 November 2001','Tolls','Tolls',1007351099,'Rule 2005/1 (Power=1)\nTolls\n\n A Player who owns Land may impose a Toll on any (currently\n un-Tolled) piece of Land e owns. To do so, e must pay a Fee of\n 0.2 Indulgences and publicly announce that e is imposing a\n Toll, clearly and unambiguously identifying the Unit of Land in\n question, as well as the amount of the Toll for that Unit of\n Land.\n\n A Toll is a number of VEs, Indulgences, or Papyri. No Unit of\n Land may have a Toll in other currencies, or in more than one of\n these currencies. No Toll shall be greater than 200 times the\n MUQ of the currency in which it is denominated. If a Player\n (the Tollee) Moves into a Unit of Land which is at the time\n owned by another Player (the Toller), and for which there is at\n the time a Toll established, e (the Tollee) is said to be In\n Toll to the Unit of Land in question, for the amount of the Toll\n on that unit of land (at the time of the Move)\n\n The owner (Toller) of a Unit of Land may notify the Mapkeepor\n that e believes a Player has been In Toll to a Unit of Land\n owned by em; to do so, e submits a Notification of Toll, which\n must unambiguously describe the Unit of Land in question, the\n amount of the Toll, and the Player (alleged Tollee) in question.\n The alleged Move must have occurred within the past week. A\n Player may submit only one such Notification for a given Unit of\n Land in a single week, and may not submit substantially the same\n Notification two weeks in a row. Any Notification of Toll\n contrary to this Rule is invalid and shall be discarded.\n\n If, in the Mapkeepor\'s determination, the alleged Tollee was in\n fact, in the week before the Notification, In Toll to the\n specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, the Mapkeepor\n shall confirm the Toll by publicly informing the Tollee and the\n Toller. The Tollee then incurs to the Toller a debt equal to\n the Toll specified in the Notification. If, in the Mapkeepor\'s\n determination, the alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the\n specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e shall deny\n the Notification by informing the Toller of eir determination.\n\n If the Mapkeepor fails to respond to a valid Notification of\n Toll, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Looking the Other Way. If\n the Mapkeepor confirms a Notification of Toll when in fact the\n alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for\n the specified amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3\n Crime of Conspiracy to Commit Highway Robbery. If the Mapkeeper\n denies a Notification of Toll when in fact the alleged Tollee\n was In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified\n amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3 Crime of Not\n Feeding the Toll Under the Bridge.\n\n A Player may remove a Toll from any Tolled Unit of Land e owns\n by publicly announcing that e does so. If a Player loses\n possession of a Unit of Land, all Tolls imposed on that Unit by\n that Player are removed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4228 (root), 22 November 2001'),(404814,'rcs','00000001.00000035',1598,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001','Property Transfers','Property Transfers',1010594588,'Rule 1598/12 (Power=1)\nProperty Transfers\n\n (a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the\n intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity\n (the \"transferor\") to some other entity (the \"transferee\").\n\n (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:\n (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by\n the transferor; and\n (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a\n Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to\n execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect\n to all of the Properties involved.\n\n (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor\n receives a valid Notice of Transfer.\n\n (d) The effect of a transfer of Properties is to cause the\n transferor to cease to possess the Properties transferred,\n and simultaneously to cause the transferee to possess them.\n\n (e) The Recordkeepor of a Property shall maintain a record of\n all transfers of that Property. E shall retain a record of\n each Notice of Transfer which e receives (whether valid or\n not) involving that Property. E shall retain this record of\n each Notice of Transfer for at least four weeks after its\n receipt.\n\n (f) If the transferor transfers Property to the transferee with\n the purpose of satisfying a debt, or of paying the Fee\n associated with performing an action, but the debt does not\n exist, or the action is not successfully performed, then the\n transferor may publicly demand the return of the Property.\n The effect of such a demand is to cause the transferee to\n incur a debt to the transferor for the Property transferred.\n\n[In CFJ 1302, judged TRUE on 26 June 2001, the Judge agreed with the\n caller\'s argument that \"a \'conditionally expressed Notice of\n Transfer\' (that is, a message which appears to be a Notice of\n Transfer but with a condition attached), where a reasonable person\n would conclude that the sender of the purported Notice of Transfer\n did not possess, at the time e sent the purported Notice of Transfer,\n immediate knowledge as to whether the condition was true, does not\n express an \'intent to transfer one or more Properties\' and as such is\n not a Notice of Transfer. Rather, such a message expresses an intent\n to achieve a certain state of affairs which may or may not include a\n transfer, and as such fails to set forth the requisite intent\n required by Rule 1598.\"]\n\n[CFJ 1337, judged 8 January 2002, established that the use of a\n locution like \'I transfer all my Papyri (3.15) to the Bank\' is\n acceptable and valid as a Notice of Transfer, because it clearly\n specifies the Properties being transferred.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Nov. 26 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1598, Dec. 10 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3627 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001'),(404815,'rcs','00000001.00000036',1941,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4243 (Goethe), 8 February 2002','Fees','Fees',1013443702,'Rule 1941/1 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n A Fee is a specific quantity of some particular Currency\n explicitly designated as such by the Rules. To Pay a Fee is to\n transfer the specified quantity of that particular Currency to\n the Bank if and only if that transfer is made solely for the\n purpose of Paying that particular instance of that Fee.\n\n If the Rules specify that a particular action is associated with\n a Fee, or that a Fee is required for a particular action, then\n the entity performing the action shall Pay the Fee either before\n performing said action (but not more than 72 hours beforehand)\n or in the same email as the action is performed, else the action\n shall not occur.\n\n If, however, at the time of performing the given action, the\n Location of the entity performing the action is the same as the\n Location of the Rule which associates or requires a Fee for the\n given action, and the Player announces this overlap of Location\n in the same communication in which the action is performed, the\n action shall occur as permitted by other Rules whether or not\n the associated Fee is Paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4243 (Goethe), 8 February 2002'),(404816,'rcs','00000001.00000037',1941,'Created by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000','Fees','Fees',1013792135,'Rule 1941/0 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n A Fee is a specific quantity of some particular Currency\n explicitly designated as such by the Rules. To Pay a Fee is\n to transfer the specified quantity of that particular Currency\n to the Bank if and only if that transfer is made solely for\n the purpose of Paying that particular instance of that Fee.\n\n If the Rules specify that a particular action is associated\n with a Fee, or that a Fee is required for a particular action,\n then the entity performing the action shall Pay the Fee either\n before performing said action (but not more than 72 hours\n beforehand) or in the same email as the action is performed,\n else the action shall not occur.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000'),(404817,'rcs','00000001.00000038',879,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002','Quorum','Quorum',1014137619,'Rule 879/14 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three\n Oligarchs cast votes on it.\n\n A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if:\n (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or\n (2) at least one-fifth of all Players\n cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be\n determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy\n Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the\n time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002'),(404818,'rcs','00000001.00000040',478,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002','The Public Forum','The Public Forum',1014663197,'Rule 478/12 (Power=1)\nThe Public Forum\n\n A Public Forum is a medium of communication so designated by\n the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be\n considered the equivalent of sending that message to all\n Players.\n\n A Discussion Forum is a medium of communication so designated\n by the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never be a Public\n Forum, and a message is not considered to have been sent to\n all Players solely because it was sent to a Discussion Forum.\n\n The Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to\n be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without\n Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made\n via the medium whose designation is being changed. Any\n designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be\n announced via all existing Public Fora in addition to any\n other requirements.\n\n It is the responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that\n e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum.\n Any inability of a Player to receive messages via a particular\n Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status\n as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive\n messages via any particular Discussion Forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media\n which are currently Public or Discussion Fora and sufficient\n data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive\n messages via that medium.\n\n Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall\n be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication\n which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or\n combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made\n publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it\n is intended to be public.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to publish certain information,\n then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the\n time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is\n required to publish.\n\n If the Rules require a Player to announce certain information,\n that announcement must be made publicly.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.\n CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.\n CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.\n CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: \"In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002'),(404819,'rcs','00000001.00000040',459,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','Agoran Epochs','Agoran Epochs',1014663197,'Rule 459/4 (Power=1)\nAgoran Epochs\n\n Weeks, months, quarters and years are epochs. The corresponding\n Agoran epochs, which constitute the four types of Agoran epochs,\n are Agoran weeks, Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran\n years, respectively.\n\n Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months\n begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month.\n Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April,\n July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran\n month of January begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next\n Agoran epoch of the same type begins.\n\n Except in this Rule, when the Rules refer to an epoch, they\n shall be interpreted to refer to the corresponding Agoran epoch.\n\n Automatic events that happen weekly, monthly, quarterly, or\n yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran\n epoch. Any activity that must be performed weekly, monthly,\n quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once during each\n corresponding Agoran epoch.\n\n Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events\n or classes of events.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 459 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4114 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404820,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1986,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4254 (Goethe), 21 February 2002','Role-Based Powers','Role-Based Powers',1014663197,'Rule 1986/1 (Power=2)\nRole-Based Powers\n\n A Scribe may lower the Distribution Cost of a Proposal by 1 with\n the Support of another Scribe, to a minimum cost of 0, provided\n the Cost of the Proposal has not already been so lowered.\n\n An Acolyte may expunge 1 Blot from any Entity with the Support\n of another Acolyte, provided the Acolyte has not so Expunged a\n Blot in the same Nomic Week.\n\n An Acolyte with the Support of a Scribe, or a Scribe with the\n Support of an Acolyte, may Bless an Undistributed Proposal. A\n moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Ordinary Proposal\n becomes Democratic.\n\n A Politician, with the Support of another Poltician, may Unbless\n an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed Proposal is no\n longer Blessed.\n\n An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a\n Distributed Proposal for which the Voting Period has not ended.\n If this happens, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere,\n but remains Distributable and becomes Democratic and Sane.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4174 (Kelly), 7 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4254 (Goethe), 21 February 2002'),(404821,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1006,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','Offices','Offices',1014663197,'Rule 1006/9 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404822,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1686,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','Official Reports','Official Reports',1014663197,'Rule 1686/10 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an\n Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly\n Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official\n Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official\n Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.\n\n The rules may specify conditions under which a player is marvy;\n that player is not marvy unless the rules explicitly state at\n least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied.\n As soon as possible after a player becomes marvy, the Speaker\n shall announce this fact. The only condition for marviness is\n membership in the Outer Cabinet.\n\n Each officer with a Weekly Report must publish it weekly; each\n officer with a Monthly Report must publish it monthly. Failure\n to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. If an\n officer fails to do so for at least three consecutive reporting\n periods, e may be cited for either Failure to Report or the\n Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty but not both. Any\n officer cited for Derelicition of Duty is immediately retired.\n The Assistant Director of Personnel and the Speaker may report\n these Infractions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404823,'rcs','00000001.00000040',880,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','Resignation','Resignation',1014663197,'Rule 880/7 (Power=1)\nResignation\n\n An oligarch or the holder of an office may resign from eir\n position at any time by announcing that e does so.\n\n The electee to an office may appoint another player as a\n successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is\n retired from that office, and if within one week from the\n appointment the named succcessor publicly agrees to be successor\n to the office, that player becomes holder of the office.\n\n An oligarch may appoint another player as a successor when e\n resigns. If so, the resigning player is removed from the\n Oligarchy, and if within one week from the appointment the named\n successsor publicly agrees to be successor to the seat in the\n Oligarchy and pays a fee of 1 Voting Entitlement, that player\n becomes an Oligarch.\n\n A non-electee who resigns or an electee who does not name a\n successor is immediately removed from office. An oligarch who\n does not name a successor is immediately removed from the\n Oligarchy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 405 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 880, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1631, Jul. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2781 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404824,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1905,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Cabinet','The Cabinet',1014663197,'Rule 1905/1 (Power=1)\nThe Cabinet\n\n The Cabinet, or Inner Cabinet, consists of the Speaker and all\n electees to office. The Outer Cabinet consists of all Oligarchs\n who are not members of the Inner Cabinet.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404825,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1955,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy',1014663197,'Rule 1955/5 (Power=1)\nThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n\n The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor of oligarchs and is responsible for\n conducting auctions for positions in the Oligarchy.\n\n The GWotO\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of all oligarchs\n identifying which, if any, are elder oligarchs.\n\n The GWotO shall have a budget containing the Oligarchy Auction\n Rate, which is a positive integer less than 5. The GWotO may\n Without 2 Objections from oligarchs replace the budget with a\n proto-budget e publishes when e announces eir intent to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404826,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1975,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002','The Assistant Director of Personnel','The Assistant Director of Personnel',1014663197,'Rule 1975/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assistant Director of Personnel\n\n The Assistant Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is\n responsible for holding elections for offices.\n\n The ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all offices;\n\n (b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on\n which e most recently became electee to that office;\n\n (c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not\n the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date\n on which e most recently became holder of that office;\n\n (d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for\n that office ends, or an indication that the office is held\n in perpetuity; and\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002'),(404827,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1892,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Treasuror','The Treasuror',1014663197,'Rule 1892/6 (Power=1)\nThe Treasuror\n\n The Treasuror is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of\n generic information, excluding holdings, of currencies, and is\n responsible for setting the values of compensations.\n\n The Treasuror\'s Monthly Report shall include, for each currency,\n its name, mintor, recordkeepor, and Minimum Unit Quantity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3888 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3935 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404828,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1940,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',1014663197,'Rule 1940/4 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic\n compensations. At the beginning of each month, each periodic\n compensation required to be paid out shall be paid out by the\n Officer required to do so.\n\n The Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the Speaker\'s\n Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are periodic\n compensations.\n\n The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to each\n Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the designated\n Salary for each Office that Player held for at least 16 days of\n the previous month.\n\n The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity to\n the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was both the\n Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of the previous\n month.\n\n The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a Player\n if that Player was Speaker for the whole of the previous month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002'),(404829,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1607,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Promotor','The Promotor',1014663197,'Rule 1607/10 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Papyri\n and is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the titles\n and submission dates of all proposals in the proposal pool.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404830,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1954,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002','Distribution of Papyri','Distribution of Papyri',1014663197,'Rule 1954/5 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Papyri\n\n As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the\n Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must\n always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may\n auction as many Papyri as e wishes.\n\n The items to be auctioned are individual Papyri, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Papyri to be\n Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems. Only\n Scribes may bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4056 (t), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002'),(404831,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1449,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002','The Assessor','The Assessor',1014663197,'Rule 1449/14 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting\n Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the\n results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the\n identity, voting power on ordinary proposals, and voting power\n on democratic proposals for each entity with nonzero voting\n power on either ordinary or democratic proposals.\n\n (c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting\n Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1\n between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002'),(404832,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1434,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting',1014663197,'Rule 1434/10 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Referendum Voting\n\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is 50% of the eligible Voters at the beginning\n of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not\n challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector\n announces them, then the announced results are the true\n results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in\n error.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1456, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2585, May 1 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2783 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmedned(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002'),(404833,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1445,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002','Defaults for Elections','Defaults for Elections',1014663197,'Rule 1445/16 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections\n\n When an Election is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the following Standard Election Procedure shall be\n used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be\n modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for taking\n nominations, collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing\n the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time\n the Election begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the winner of\n the Election, then the Election has no winner.\n\n * Nominator: A Nominator is an entity permitted to Nominate a\n Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Nominators.\n Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent.\n\n * Prospective: A Prospective is an entity permitted to be\n Nominated as a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players\n are Prospectives. Activity is measured at the time a\n Nomination is sent.\n\n * Nominating: A Nominator Nominates a Prospective by sending a\n message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period,\n indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the\n Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same\n as the Nominator.\n\n * Candidates: A Candidate for an Election is a Prospective who\n has been Nominated in that Election.\n\n * Retraction: A Nominator may retract eir Nomination by sending\n a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period,\n indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the\n Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same\n as the Nominator.\n\n * Declination: A Prospective may decline eir Nomination by\n sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating\n Period, indicating the Election. Upon doing so, e may not be\n re-Nominated in that Election by anyone but emself.\n\n * Mode of Nominations: There are three Modes of Nominations:\n Selfish, Selfless, or Open. The Vote Collector may specify a\n Mode of Nominations when e announces the start of the\n Election; if e does not, then the Mode is Selfish.\n\n (a) In a Selfish Election, a Nominator may Nominate only\n emself.\n (b) In a Selfless Election, a Nominator may not Nominate\n emself.\n (c) In an Open Election, a Nominator may Nominate any\n Prospective.\n\n * Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the time\n of the first correct and legal announcement that an Election\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one\n Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside\n of the Nominating Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.\n\n * End of Nominations: As soon as possible after the end of the\n Nominating Period, the Vote Collector shall publish a list of\n all Candidates. If e does not do this as soon as possible,\n then the Election has no winner.\n\n If there are no Candidates, then the Election has no winner.\n\n If there is exactly one Candidate, then e is the winner of that\n Election.\n\n If there are two or more Candidates, then a Referendum begins\n when the Vote Collector publishes the list of Candidates. This\n is a standard Referendum, with the following exceptions:\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the\n same as the Vote Collector for the Election.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is the name of exactly one Candidate for\n the given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous\n with these are also permissible.\n\n * Failure of Referendum: If the Referendum fails for any reason\n (e.g. Quorum is not achieved), then the Election has no\n winner.\n\n * Adoption: The winner of the Election is the Candidate for whom\n the most Votes were cast. If two or more Candidates are tied\n for most Votes, then the Speaker shall choose one of those\n Candidates, who becomes the winner when the Speaker announces\n eir choice. The Speaker shall announce eir choice as soon as\n possible after the Vote Collector announces the results of\n Voting.\n\n * Effectiveness: An Election takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces the identity of its winner. The\n effect of an Election is defined by other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1499 (Blob), Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2578, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2600, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2808 (Murphy), Feb. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3564 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3616 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3836 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4017 (Elysion), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4031 (Elysion), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002'),(404834,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1957,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','Budgets','Budgets',1014663197,'Rule 1957/3 (Power=1)\nBudgets\n\n A budget is a document maintained by an office which determines\n the values of various properties the office is empowered to\n determine. An office has a budget only if the Rules explicitly\n indicate that the office has a budget. Each budget shall be\n part of the corresponding office\'s Monthly Report. As soon as\n possible after a budget changes, the holder of the corresponding\n office (the maintainer) shall publish it.\n\n As soon as possible after a budget is discovered to be invalid,\n its maintainer shall create a valid budget as close as possible\n to the most recent valid version of the budget. The new budget\n shall be effective when the maintainer publishes it.\n\n While holding an office as electee, an officer may Without\n Objection amend the budget to adhere to a proto-budget which e\n must publish at the time e announces eir intent to amend. The\n Rules regarding a particular budget may specify a different\n procedure for its amendment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404835,'rcs','00000001.00000040',889,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1014663197,'Rule 889/11 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404836,'rcs','00000001.00000040',910,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Justiciar','The Justiciar',1014663197,'Rule 910/10 (Power=1)\nThe Justiciar\n\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice and for serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\n Neither the Speaker nor the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) may\n nominate for the office of Justiciar; if the Justiciar ever\n becomes CotC, e is removed from the office of Justiciar.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 910, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1581, May 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2569, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404837,'rcs','00000001.00000040',559,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002','The Registrar','The Registrar',1014663197,'Rule 559/19 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s Active/Inactive status, and the most recent\n date on which that player became Active or Inactive;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002'),(404838,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1051,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1014663197,'Rule 1051/17 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report shall include the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404839,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1942,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','Property','Property',1014663197,'Rule 1942/2 (Power=1)\nProperty\n\n A property is an entity which the rules permit to be possessed\n by another entity. The term \"possess\" refers to the legal\n status of possessing a property; the terms \"possessor\" and\n \"owner\" are synonyms, as are \"possess\" and \"own\". Individual\n properties may not be created or destroyed, or their ownership\n changed, except in accordance with the rules.\n\n Each property shall have a recordkeepor, which is a player\n required to maintain a record of who owns that property. The\n Treasuror is the recordkeepor for each property that would\n otherwise have no recordkeepor.\n\n If one of the official duties of an officer is to be the\n recordkeepor of a property, then eir Weekly Report shall include\n this record and any changes thereto since the last posting of\n eir Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404840,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1981,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4256 (Murphy), 21 February 2002','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property',1014663197,'Rule 1981/2 (Power=1)\nEmbezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property\n\n (a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity\n which is made without being explicitly required or permitted\n by the Rules is unauthorized.\n\n (b) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property from any entity to another entity\n commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.\n\n (c) An entity which receives Property as the result of a valid\n but unauthorized transfer incurs a debt to the Payor of that\n transfer for all Property thus received.\n\n (d) A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of which\n e is the Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the type\n decribed in\n (c) and who does not act to satisfy that debt within in a week of\n being informed of it commits the Class 10 Crime of Receiving\n Stolen Property.\n\n (e) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized\n transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if\n and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making\n it:\n (1) knew that the transfer was valid;\n (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and\n (3) realized that e was making the transfer.\n\n (f) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property as the result of an accident or mistake\n does not commit Embezzlement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4256 (Murphy), 21 February 2002'),(404841,'rcs','00000001.00000040',2006,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002','Looting Auctions','Looting Auctions',1014663197,'Rule 2006/1 (Power=1)\nLooting Auctions\n\n As soon as possible after a player becomes a Dissolute, the\n Notary shall initiate an Auction for the privilege of Looting\n the Corpse of the Dissolute. Once a Looting Auction begins, the\n Notary may not transfer property on behalf of the Dissolute\n until either the Auction ends without any winning bids or the\n winning bidder defaults on eir bid or loses eir privilege to\n Loot the Corpse of that Dissolute.\n\n Looting Auctions shall follow the default procedure for Auctions\n with the following modifications:\n\n (1) The Auction Currency shall be Indulgences.\n (2) The Starting Price shall be the number of Blots the\n Dissolute had when e became a Dissolute, or one Indulgence\n if the Dissolute was Immaculate.\n (3) The Auction shall be for a temporary privilege, not for an\n item, and so no debt of items to the winning Bidder when eir\n bill is paid shall be incurred.\n\n If there are no winning bids for the privilege of Looting the\n Corpse of that Dissolute, the Notary must, as soon as possible\n after the end of the Looting Auction, transfer all the\n Dissolute\'s property to the Bank.\n\n When the winning bidder pays eir bill from the Looting Auction,\n e gains the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that Dissolute; e\n becomes a Limited Executor of the Dissolute, with the authority\n to transfer property from the Dissolute to emself. One week\n after e gains this privilege, e loses it, and ceases to be a\n Limited Executor of the Dissolute. If the Dissolute still has\n property after the winning bidder loses this privilege, the\n Notary must transfer the Dissolute\'s remaining property to the\n Bank as soon as possible afterward.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002'),(404842,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1596,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4259 (Murphy), 21 February 2002','Debt','Debt',1014663197,'Rule 1596/8 (Power=1)\nDebt\n\n (a) A \"debt\" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one\n entity (the \"debtor\") to make a transfer of one or more\n Properties to some other entity (the \"creditor\").\n\n (b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to\n inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor.\n If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted,\n the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is\n posted.\n\n (c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is\n deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the\n creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of\n multiple transfers).\n\n (d) A debt is forgiven when the creditor of a debt sends a\n notice to the debtor that e is forgiving the debt.\n Forgiveness may be for the entire debt or for any part\n thereof. The effect forgiving a debt is as if the debtor\n had made a payment on the debt for the portion forgiven,\n except that no transfer of property takes place thereby.\n\n (e) If two entities are each others\' debtor, and all or part of\n their debts to each other are for the same quantity (equal\n portions) of the same fungible Property, then a public\n announcement of this mutual debt by either entity will have\n the effect of satisfying the equal portions of the debts for\n both debtors as in (c) above.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4037 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4259 (Murphy), 21 February 2002'),(404843,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1887,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2001','Default Procedure for Auctions','Default Procedure for Auctions',1014663197,'Rule 1887/15 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Auctions\n\n When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction\n Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not\n specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure\n shall be used.\n\n The details specified herein are for the Default Auction\n Procedure.\n\n (a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting\n bids and announcing the result of the Auction. The\n Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the Auction. If the\n Rules require or allow an Auction to be initiated, but do\n not specify which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker\n shall initiate it.\n\n (b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the\n Auction cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of Lots: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number\n of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible\n value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting\n Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires\n during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing\n that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and\n the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies\n the following conditions:\n (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or\n after its end.\n (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction\n Currency.\n (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by\n publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be\n cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.\n\n (i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started,\n there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have\n passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid\n (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction\n shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or\n all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids.\n\n The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the\n Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each\n winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.\n\n Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the\n winning Bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2001'),(404844,'rcs','00000001.00000040',2012,'Created by Proposal 4251 (Steve), 19 February 2002','Single-Bid Auctions','Single-Bid Auctions',1014663197,'Rule 2012/0 (Power=1)\nSingle-Bid Auctions\n\n (a) There is a type of Auction called a Single-Bid Auction. The\n procedure for conducting a Single-Bid Auction is the same as\n that used in the Default Auction Procedure, with the following\n additions and exceptions:\n\n (1) Bid Inflation Factor: As part of any correct and legal\n announcement that a Single-Bid Auction is commencing,\n the Auctioneer must announce the value of the Bid\n Inflation Factor for the Auction, a real number between\n 0 and 1 inclusive.\n\n (2) Making Bids: Each Player eligible to bid in the Auction\n is permitted to make only one bid, called the initial\n Bid. Any bids made by a Player after eir initial Bid in\n the Auction are invalid. A Player who cancels eir bid is\n ineligible to make further bids in the Auction. All Bids\n must be made publically.\n\n (3) Value of Bids: at each midnight GMT during the Auction,\n the value of each valid, uncancelled Bid remaining in\n the Auction is increased by an amount equal to the Bid\n Inflation Factor multiplied by the initial Bid.\n\n (4) Final Auction Price: for the purposes of determining the\n Winner(s) of the Auction, the value of each Bid as\n calculated in (3) above is used. However, the debt\n incurred by a Winner of the Auction is equal to eir\n initial Bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4251 (Steve), 19 February 2002'),(404845,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1970,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Usuror','The Usuror',1014663197,'Rule 1970/3 (Power=1)\nThe Usuror\n\n The Usuror is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for Bonds\n and is partially responsible for the woes of revolving credit.\n\n The Usuror is a Limited Executor of the Bank, with the authority\n to satisfy debts of Bonds owed by the Bank to its creditors.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4144 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4171 (Blob), 26 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404846,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1971,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002','Bank Issuance of Bonds','Bank Issuance of Bonds',1014663197,'Rule 1971/1 (Power=1)\nBank Issuance of Bonds\n\n The Bank, by the Treasuror, may issue Bonds with two Supporters.\n The number and species of Bonds to be issued must be set forth\n at the time the Treasuror seeks Support for the action. The\n Bank may not otherwise issue Bonds except through the mechanism\n set forth in this paragraph.\n\n The Bank, by the Treasuror, may Auction Bonds Without Three\n Objections. Each Auction of Bank Bonds shall consist of some\n number of a single species of Bond. The species of Bond, the\n number of Bonds of that species, the Auction Currency, and the\n Minimum Bid of each Auction shall be determined by the Treasuror\n as part of the message indicating eir intent to hold a Bank Bond\n Auction.\n\n The Bank is not required to actually possess the Bonds it\n intends to Auction at the time the intent to conduct an Auction\n is announced or at the time the Auction begins. However, if the\n Bank, by virtue of not having sufficient quantity of some\n species of Bond, is unable to satisfy a debt arising from a Bond\n Auction within seven days of when the Auction ends, the Player\n who was Treasuror at the time the Auction began commits the\n offense of Selling the Blue Sky, a Class 6 Crime.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4126 (Kelly), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002'),(404847,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1909,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Payroll Clerk','The Payroll Clerk',1014663197,'Rule 1909/7 (Power=1)\nThe Payroll Clerk\n\n The Payroll Clerk is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of\n Stems and is responsible for paying out salaries and other\n compensations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3935 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404848,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1946,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002','Distribution of Voting Entitlements','Distribution of Voting Entitlements',1014663197,'Rule 1946/7 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Voting Entitlements\n\n (a) The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is\n equal to the number of registered Players multiplied by the\n Voting Entitlements per Player as set in the Assessor\'s\n Budget.\n\n (b) The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is\n the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities\n other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting\n Entitlements owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off\n to Winning Bidders in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions but\n not yet paid for.\n\n (c) The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the\n IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL,\n the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.\n\n (d) If the Voting Entitlement Surplus is positive at the\n beginning of the month, the Assessor shall as soon as\n possible auction off the surplus Voting Entitlements. The\n items to be auctioned are lots of 0.1 VEs; the number of\n items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus multiplied\n by 10, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer\n shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be conducted in\n Stems. Only Politicians may bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4058 (Peekee), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4117 (Blob), Mar. 6 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4247 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002'),(404849,'rcs','00000001.00000040',2013,'Created by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002','Champion\'s Contests','Champion\'s Contests',1014663197,'Rule 2013/0 (Power=1)\nChampion\'s Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Champion\'s Contest if and only if:\n (i) its Contestmaster bears the Patent Title Current\n Champion;\n (ii) no other Contest is a Champion\'s Contest;\n (iii) the Contest\'s Regulations state that it is a\n Champion\'s Contest.\n If any of these criteria cease to be true, the Contest\n immediately ceases being a Champion\'s Contest.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002'),(404850,'rcs','00000001.00000040',2014,'Created by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002','SemiGenii','SemiGenii',1014663197,'Rule 2014/0 (Power=1)\nSemiGenii\n\n SemiGenius is a defined regular Patent Title.\n\n Bearing the Patent Title SemiGenius is a Win Condition. If at\n any time a Player Wins the Game, the Patent Title SemiGenius is\n revoked from all those who bear it.\n\n The Patent Title SemiGenius may only be Awarded by an valid\n Public Announcement of SemiGeniosity naming the Awardee. Such\n an Announcement may only be made by the Contestmaster of a\n Champion\'s Contest. To be valid, the Announcement must be made\n only as explicitly permitted by the Regulations of the Contest.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002'),(404851,'rcs','00000001.00000040',2015,'Created by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002','A Champion\'s Retirement','A Champion\'s Retirement',1014663197,'Rule 2015/0 (Power=1)\nA Champion\'s Retirement\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, the Winner\'s Stipend may\n not be changed except as permitted by this Rule.\n\n If a Player Wins the Game by Bearing the Patent Title\n SemiGenius, The Winner\'s Stipend shall be set equal to\n proportion, rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.1, of Active\n Players (out of total number of Active Players at the time of\n the Win) that were Contestants, at any time since the most\n recent previous Win, in the Champion\'s Contest that Awarded that\n Patent Title.\n\n In this case, the Scorekeepor shall pay out the Champion\'s\n Pension, equal to this new Winner\'s Stipend times the BOS, to\n the Contestmaster who awarded the Patent Title.\n\n If a Player Wins the Game by any other Win Condition, the\n Winner\'s Stipend shall be set to 0.5, and no Champion\'s Pension\n shall be awarded.\n\n If a Player bears the Patent Title Current Champion at the\n beginning of four consecutive Nomic months without a Win\n occuring, then at the beginning each month thereafter, until a\n Win occurs, the Scorekeepor shall Bill the Player an amount\n equal to twice the current Winner\'s Stipend times the BOS.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002'),(404852,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1928,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Scorekeepor','The Scorekeepor',1014663197,'Rule 1928/3 (Power=1)\nThe Scorekeepor\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of scores.\n\n The Scorekeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include the score of each\n registered player, as well as any changes thereto since the last\n posting of the Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404853,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1377,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Herald','The Herald',1014663197,'Rule 1377/15 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of\n Indulgences and is responsible for keeping track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The number of Blots staining the records of each Player\n and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404854,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1712,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1014663197,'Rule 1712/13 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total number of Blots held by\n Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less\n the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other\n entities during that same Nomic Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the\n number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that\n number shall be allowed to stand.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. In addition, the Auction shall be conducted in Stems\n with only Acolytes being allowed to bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002'),(404855,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1647,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Speaker-Elect','The Speaker-Elect',1014663197,'Rule 1647/9 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker-Elect\n\n The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the\n Speaker\'s successor.\n\n Whenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be\n Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of\n Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of\n Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that\n Office.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar cannot Nominate for the\n Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the\n Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the\n Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as\n defined by other Rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the\n characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2681, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4246 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404856,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1458,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Notary','The Notary',1014663197,'Rule 1458/11 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Report shall include the following information\n for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution\n of any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If\n an Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the\n above information for that Organization.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2810 (Blob), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Oct. 12 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1458, Oct. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(10) by Propoal 01-002 (Blob), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404857,'rcs','00000001.00000040',1996,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Mapkeepor','The Mapkeepor',1014663197,'Rule 1996/1 (Power=1)\nThe Mapkeepor\n\n The Mapkeepor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the\n Land of Arcadia.\n\n The Mapkeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (i) the ownership and land type of all existing land;\n (ii) all changes in the ownership and land type of existing\n land since the most recent report; and\n (iii) the location of each entity or instrument with a defined\n non-secret location.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(404858,'rcs','00000001.00000040',2004,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002','Land Auctions','Land Auctions',1014663197,'Rule 2004/2 (Power=1)\nLand Auctions\n\n As soon as possible after the tenth day of each Month, the\n Mapkeepor shall, if the number of units of Land held by players\n is less than one half the total number of units of Land, auction\n a number of units of Land not to exceed 10. The units of Land\n to be Auctioned are:\n * if there exist at least 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: any 10 such Units of Land, to\n be chosen by the Mapkeepor;\n * if there exist fewer than 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: all such Units.\n\n There shall be a separate Auction for each Unit of Land under\n consideration. These Auctions shall be conducted concurrently.\n For each of these Auctions:\n * The item to be Auctioned is the piece of Land in question.\n * The Procedure to be used is the Vickrey Auction.\n * The Default Auction Currency shall be Indulgences; however,\n the Auctioneer may select a different Bank Currency with 2\n Supporters.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002'),(404859,'rcs','00000001.00000041',2010,'Created by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Oligarchy Upkeep','Oligarchy Upkeep',1015428980,'Rule 2010/0 (Power=2)\nOligarchy Upkeep\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the GWotO\n shall bill each non-Elder Oligarch 0.1 VEs. The GWotO shall\n remove from the Oligarchy any Oligarch who does not pay a debt\n resulting from this Rule within 7 days of the announcement of\n such a debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(404860,'rcs','00000001.00000041',1503,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001','Crimes and Infractions','Crimes and Infractions',1015428980,'Rule 1503/5 (Power=1)\nCrimes and Infractions\n\n An action or inaction is a Crime or an Infraction only if\n defined as such by the Rules.\n\n An entity may be convicted of a Crime only by a judicial finding\n that e has committed that Crime. An entity may be convicted of\n an Infraction only by announcement of a Player authorized by the\n Rules to report the commission of that Infraction.\n\n The commission of a Crime or Infraction may be penalized only as\n defined by the Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2700, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001'),(404861,'rcs','00000001.00000041',1981,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4256 (Murphy), 21 February 2002','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property',1015428980,'Rule 1981/2 (Power=1)\nEmbezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property\n\n (a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity\n which is made without being explicitly required or permitted\n by the Rules is unauthorized.\n\n (b) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property from any entity to another entity\n commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.\n\n (c) An entity which receives Property as the result of a valid\n but unauthorized transfer incurs a debt to the Payor of that\n transfer for all Property thus received.\n\n (d) A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of which\n e is the Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the type\n decribed in (c) and who does not act to satisfy that debt\n within in a week of being informed of it commits the Class\n 10 Crime of Receiving Stolen Property.\n\n (e) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized\n transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if\n and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making\n it:\n (1) knew that the transfer was valid;\n (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and\n (3) realized that e was making the transfer.\n\n (f) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property as the result of an accident or mistake\n does not commit Embezzlement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4256 (Murphy), 21 February 2002'),(404862,'rcs','00000001.00000041',2011,'Created by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001','Stems Weather','Stems Weather',1015428980,'Rule 2011/0 (Power=1)\nStems Weather\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n Treasuror shall randomly Determine the Weather for the month.\n The Weather can be one of either Foul, Fair, or Plenty, and\n shall be determined using the following probabilities:\n 0.20 Foul.\n 0.30 Fair.\n 0.20 Plenty.\n 0.30 Same as the previous month.\n\n When the Treasuror posts eir Determination of the Weather for a\n month, the following events shall occur in the listed sequence\n immediately after the Weather is Determined:\n\n (a) A number of Stems in the Bank\'s possession, equal to\n the number of Players in the game multiplied by the\n Minimum Income, shall be Destroyed. If this value is\n greater than the number of Stems in the Possession of\n the Bank, all the Stems in the Possession of the Bank\n shall be Destroyed instead.\n (b) A number of Stems shall be Created in the Bank\'s\n Possession, equal to the number Destroyed in (a) above\n multiplied by:\n 0.50 if the Weather is Foul;\n 1.00 if the Weather is Fair;\n 1.50 if the Weather is Plenty.\n\n The Treasuror shall announce the number of Stems Created and\n Destroyed by this Rule in the message in which e announces the\n Weather.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001'),(404863,'rcs','00000001.00000041',1614,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Names of Organizations','Names of Organizations',1015428980,'Rule 1614/7 (Power=1)\nNames of Organizations\n\n Each Organization has a unique Name. The Name of an\n Organization may only change as specified by its Charter or by\n the Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404864,'rcs','00000001.00000041',1533,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001','Application to Create an Organization','Application to Create an Organization',1015428980,'Rule 1533/13 (Power=1)\nApplication to Create an Organization\n\n An Application to Create an Organization (ACO) shall be\n submitted to the Notary.\n\n To be valid, an ACO must specify all properties that an\n Organization is required to have. Other Rules may place further\n conditions on the validity of ACOs for a specific Class of\n Organization.\n\n The effect of submitting a valid ACO is to create the\n prospective Organization, with the Sponsor and signatories as\n Foundors and initial Members.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2035, Dec. 4 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, May 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2633, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Aug. 24 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1533, Sep. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001'),(404865,'rcs','00000001.00000041',1997,'Created by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001','Defined Land Types and Subtypes','Defined Land Types and Subtypes',1015428980,'Rule 1997/0 (Power=1)\nDefined Land Types and Subtypes\n\n In addition to Aether, the following Land Types are defined:\n (a) Wilderness;\n (b) Farmland;\n (c) Water;\n (d) Urbana.\n\n The following Land Subtypes are permissible for Units of\n Wilderness:\n (a) Mountans;\n (b) Hills;\n (c) Forest;\n (d) Desert;\n\n The following Land Subtypes are permissible for Units of Urbana:\n (a) City;\n (b) Road;\n (c) Aqueduct.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001'),(404866,'rcs','00000001.00000042',1963,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1015954448,'Rule 1963/2 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is On Hold;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect; or\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as\n possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by\n correctly announcing that at least one of the above\n conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases\n to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002'),(404867,'rcs','00000001.00000042',2016,'Created by Proposal 4264 (Steve), 4 March 2002','Contested Proposals','Contested Proposals',1015954448,'Rule 2016/0 (Power=2)\nContested Proposals\n\n (a) A null Proposal is a Proposal containing no provisions,\n i.e., one that does not propose any Rule Changes, or any\n other changes to the game state.\n\n (b) Any Player may make a null Proposal Distributable without\n payment of the usual Fee, provided that no other null\n Proposal in the current Nomic Month has been made\n Distributable under this provision.\n\n (c) The first null Proposal to be distributed in each Nomic\n Month is a Contested Proposal.\n\n (d) A Contested Proposal is Democratic.\n\n (e) Notwithstanding the prevailing Mode of Voting on Proposals,\n voting on a Contested Proposal is always Unrestricted. This\n Rule takes precedence over Rules that determine the\n permissible methods for casting votes on Proposals.\n\n (f) If a Contested Proposal fails Quorum, no Points are Awarded.\n\n (g) If a Contested Proposal achieves Quorum, but fails, each\n Player who voted against the Proposal and did not vote for\n it may be Awarded 10 Points.\n\n (h) If a Contested Proposal is adopted, each Player who voted\n for the Proposal and did not vote against it may be Awarded\n 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4264 (Steve), 4 March 2002'),(404868,'rcs','00000001.00000042',955,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal',1015954448,'Rule 955/6 (Power=3)\nVotes Required to Adopt a Proposal\n\n (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be\n counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned\n a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no\n votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index\n shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting\n Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index\n shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of\n votes against.\n\n (b) If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for\n the Proposal (or if both equal Unanimity), and if Quorum for\n the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted.\n Otherwise, it fails.\n\n (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as\n described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except\n as described in this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002'),(404869,'rcs','00000001.00000043',1984,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4265 (Steve), 17 March 2002','Raffles','Raffles',1016557653,'Rule 1984/3 (Power=1)\nRaffles\n\n There is a type of Auction named a Raffle. The Auction Procedure\n for a Raffle is as follows:\n\n (a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for conducting the\n Raffle. The Auctioneer is herein known as the Riff-Raff.\n\n (b) Entrants: Every Player not on Hold may enter the Raffle. On\n Hold status is measured at the time a Player enters the\n Raffle. However, if a rule prohibits a player from bidding\n in this Auction, then e is also prohibited from buying\n tickets.\n\n (c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular\n currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must\n specify the currency to be used, or the Raffle cannot take\n place.\n\n (d) Number of Lots: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Raffle.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Raffle begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that a Raffle is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Riff-Raff, the Raffle Currency, the number\n of items, and the Ticket Price.\n\n (f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have the same Ticket Price.\n If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal\n to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.\n\n (g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of\n the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency to the Bank,\n provided that the purchase is not made before the start of\n the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many\n tickets as e desires during the Auction.\n\n (h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no\n Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed\n without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle\n shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall\n randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the\n Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and\n multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win.\n If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all\n valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the\n Raffle.\n\n (j) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a week after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price\n in the Raffle Currency if:\n (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants,\n not including the Riff-Raff; and\n (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.\n\n (k) Announcing Winners: As soon as possible after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets.\n Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each\n winning Entrant for each of eir winning tickets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4177 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4265 (Steve), 17 March 2002'),(404870,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1497,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4273 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Truth in Advertising','Truth in Advertising',1017079070,'Rule 1497/8 (Power=1)\nTruth in Advertising\n\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of evidence submitted in support of a Claim of Error, Call for\n Judgement, or Judgement, or in response to a Judicial or\n Appellate Order requiring that Player to disclose information\n known to that Player, commits the Class 10 Crime of Perjury.\n\n Any Player who willfully makes a false statement of fact as part\n of a public message, as any part of a response to a request for\n information where that Player was required to respond, or as\n part of a message to an Officer upon which that Officer is then\n required to act, commits the Class 4 Crime of Misrepresentation.\n\n For the purposes of this Rule, the Speaker shall be considered\n an Officer.\n\n For the purpose of this Rule, for a Player to \"willfully make a\n false statement of fact\", all of the following conditions must\n be true at the time the Player makes the statement.\n\n a) The Player must present the statement as if it were true.\n\n b) The Player must know that the statement is false. In\n particular, the following things are not willful: excusable\n negligence, reasonable error, or reasonable reliance on the\n representations of another.\n\n c) The statement is not a conclusion as to the interpretation\n of the Rules, or as to their application to a particular\n situation.\n\n[CFJ 827: If it is not clear that information is *not* presented\n as correct, it is. Attempting an illegal move can, if the Player\n reports the move and knows it to be illegal, be a violation of this\n Rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1667, Aug. 18 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 10 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2043, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2548, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2614, Jun. 1 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4148 (Kelly), 13 May 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4273 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404871,'rcs','00000001.00000044',880,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4271 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Resignation','Resignation',1017079070,'Rule 880/8 (Power=1)\nResignation\n\n The holder of an Office may resign from it by announcing that e\n does so.\n\n If the holder of an Office is its Electee, and appoints a\n successor when e resigns, then:\n\n (a) The resigning Player is retired from that Office.\n (b) If the successor consents within a week, then e becomes\n holder of that Office.\n (c) If the successor does not consent within a week, then the\n resigning Player is removed from that Office.\n\n Otherwise, the resigning Player is immediately removed from that\n Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 405 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 880, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1631, Jul. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2781 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4271 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404872,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1645,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4271 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Temporary Delegation of Office','Temporary Delegation of Office',1017079070,'Rule 1645/9 (Power=1)\nTemporary Delegation of Office\n\n An Office is Delegated when all of these conditions are met:\n\n (a) The holder (hereafter known as the Delegating Player)\n publishes a Notice of Delegation, naming the Office,\n another Player (hereafter known as the Delegated Player),\n and a Period of Delegation no longer than three weeks.\n\n (b) The Delegating Player is Electee to the Office, or is the\n Speaker. This condition must hold when e publishes the\n Notice of Delegation, and must also hold at the beginning\n of the Period of Delegation.\n\n (c) The Delegated Player is permitted by the Rules to hold the\n Office at the beginning of the Period of Delegation.\n\n (d) The Delegated Player consents to the Delegation within\n seven days of the publication of the Notice of Delegation.\n\n (e) The Period of Delegation has begun and not yet ended.\n\n The Period of Delegation begins when the Notice of Delegation is\n published, or when consent is given, or at the time (if any)\n specified in the Notice of Delegation, whichever is latest.\n\n The Period of Delegation ends after the duration specified in\n the Notice of Delegation has elapsed, or when a Player other\n than the Delegating Player becomes Electee to the Office.\n\n During the Period of Delegation, the Delegated Player holds the\n Office, and earns its Salary as specified by other Rules.\n\n At the end of the Period of Delegation, if the Office has an\n Electee, then the Electee holds the Office; otherwise, the\n Delegated Player continues to hold the Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2639 (Steve), Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2645, Aug. 15 1996\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Mar. 16 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3707 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4022 (Taral), Jun. 25 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4271 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404873,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1955,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4259 (root), 22 March 2002','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy',1017079070,'Rule 1955/6 (Power=1)\nThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n\n The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor of oligarchs and is responsible for\n conducting auctions for positions in the Oligarchy.\n\n The GWotO\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of all oligarchs,\n the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly\n Speaker transition.\n\n The GWotO shall have a budget containing the Oligarchy Auction\n Rate, which is a positive integer less than 5. The GWotO may\n Without 2 Objections from oligarchs replace the budget with a\n proto-budget e publishes when e announces eir intent to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4259 (root), 22 March 2002'),(404874,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1975,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4267 (root), 22 March 2002','The Assistant Director of Personnel','The Assistant Director of Personnel',1017079070,'Rule 1975/3 (Power=1)\nThe Assistant Director of Personnel\n\n The Assistant Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is\n responsible for holding elections for offices.\n\n The ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all offices;\n\n (b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on\n which e most recently became electee to that office;\n\n (c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not\n the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date\n on which e most recently became holder of that office;\n\n (d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for\n that office ends, or an indication that the office is held\n in perpetuity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4267 (root), 22 March 2002'),(404875,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1963,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1017079070,'Rule 1963/2 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is On Hold;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect; or\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as\n possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by\n correctly announcing that at least one of the above\n conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases\n to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002'),(404876,'rcs','00000001.00000044',2010,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4268 (Steve), 22 March 2002','Oligarchy Upkeep','Oligarchy Upkeep',1017079070,'Rule 2010/1 (Power=2)\nOligarchy Upkeep\n\n (a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n GWotO shall bill each non-Elder Oligarch 0.1 VEs.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch does not pay eir Oligarchy Upkeep within a\n week of the GWotO\'s announcement of the debt, then the GWotO\n shall forgive the Upkeep debt, and remove the Oligarch from\n the Oligarchy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4268 (Steve), 22 March 2002'),(404877,'rcs','00000001.00000044',2016,'Created by Proposal 4264 (Steve), 4 March 2002','Contested Proposals','Contested Proposals',1017079070,'Rule 2016/0 (Power=2)\nContested Proposals\n\n (a) A null Proposal is a Proposal containing no provisions,\n i.e., one that does not propose any Rule Changes, or any\n other changes to the game state.\n\n (b) Any Player may make a null Proposal Distributable without\n payment of the usual Fee, provided that no other null\n Proposal in the current Nomic Month has been made\n Distributable under this provision.\n\n (c) The first null Proposal to be distributed in each Nomic\n Month is a Contested Proposal.\n\n (d) A Contested Proposal is Democratic.\n\n (e) Notwithstanding the prevailing Mode of Voting on Proposals,\n voting on a Contested Proposal is always Unrestricted. This\n Rule takes precedence over Rules that determine the\n permissible methods for casting votes on Proposals.\n\n (f) If a Contested Proposal fails Quorum, no Points are Awarded.\n\n (g) If a Contested Proposal achieves Quorum, but fails, each\n Player who voted against the Proposal and did not vote for\n it may be Awarded 10 Points.\n\n (h) If a Contested Proposal is adopted, each Player who voted\n for the Proposal and did not vote against it may be Awarded\n 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4264 (Steve), 4 March 2002'),(404878,'rcs','00000001.00000044',955,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal',1017079070,'Rule 955/6 (Power=3)\nVotes Required to Adopt a Proposal\n\n (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be\n counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned\n a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no\n votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index\n shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting\n Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index\n shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of\n votes against.\n\n (b) If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for\n the Proposal (or if both equal Unanimity), and if Quorum for\n the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted.\n Otherwise, it fails.\n\n (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as\n described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except\n as described in this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002'),(404879,'rcs','00000001.00000044',2012,'Created by Proposal 4251 (Steve), 19 February 2002','Single-Bid Auctions','Single-Bid Auctions',1017079070,'Rule 2012/0 (Power=1)\nSingle-Bid Auctions\n\n (a) There is a type of Auction called a Single-Bid Auction. The\n procedure for conducting a Single-Bid Auction is the same as\n that used in the Default Auction Procedure, with the\n following additions and exceptions:\n\n (1) Bid Inflation Factor: As part of any correct and legal\n announcement that a Single-Bid Auction is commencing,\n the Auctioneer must announce the value of the Bid\n Inflation Factor for the Auction, a real number between\n 0 and 1 inclusive.\n\n (2) Making Bids: Each Player eligible to bid in the Auction\n is permitted to make only one bid, called the initial\n Bid. Any bids made by a Player after eir initial Bid in\n the Auction are invalid. A Player who cancels eir bid is\n ineligible to make further bids in the Auction. All Bids\n must be made publically.\n\n (3) Value of Bids: at each midnight GMT during the Auction,\n the value of each valid, uncancelled Bid remaining in\n the Auction is increased by an amount equal to the Bid\n Inflation Factor multiplied by the initial Bid.\n\n (4) Final Auction Price: for the purposes of determining the\n Winner(s) of the Auction, the value of each Bid as\n calculated in (3) above is used. However, the debt\n incurred by a Winner of the Auction is equal to eir\n initial Bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4251 (Steve), 19 February 2002'),(404880,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1377,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','The Herald','The Herald',1017079070,'Rule 1377/16 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of\n Indulgences and is responsible for keeping track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404881,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1435,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murhpy), 22 March 2002','Indulgences','Indulgences',1017079070,'Rule 1435/16 (Power=1)\nIndulgences\n\n Indulgences are a Bank Currency. The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ)\n of Indulgences is 0.001. The Recordkeepor for Indulgences is\n the Herald.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1457, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3569 (Zefram), Oct. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), Feb. 15 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4003 (t), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murhpy), 22 March 2002'),(404882,'rcs','00000001.00000044',2017,'Created by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Blots','Blots',1017079070,'Rule 2017/0 (Power=1)\nBlots\n\n A entity\'s Stain is a measure of that entity\'s cleanliness,\n measured in Blots. The Stain of each entity is at all times a\n non-negative number.\n\n If the Rules state that an entity gains, is assessed, or is\n penalised some number of Blots, then, as soon as possible after\n the Herald is informed of the change, e shall record an increase\n of that amount in the entity\'s Stain. (If the entity was an\n Unready Player at the time of the change, then the Herald shall\n instead record an increase of half that amount.)\n\n If the Rules state that some number of a entity\'s Blots are\n expunged, then, as soon as possible after the Herald is informed\n of the change, e shall record a decrease of that amount in the\n entity\'s Stain. (If this would result in a negative Stain, then\n it instead results in a Stain of zero.)\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404883,'rcs','00000001.00000044',2018,'Created by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Expunging Blots with Indulgences','Expunging Blots with Indulgences',1017079070,'Rule 2018/0 (Power=1)\nExpunging Blots with Indulgences\n\n When an entity transfers an amount of Indulgences to the Bank,\n and specifies in the Notice of Transfer that the transfer is for\n the purpose of expunging the Blots of a specified entity, then\n an equal amount of the entity\'s Blots are expunged. (If the\n amount of the transfer exceeds the entity\'s Stain at the time of\n the transfer, then all of the entity\'s Blots are expunged, and\n the Bank incurs an Indulgence debt to the transferor equal to\n the amount of the original transfer minus the entity\'s previous\n Stain.)\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404884,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1962,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Immaculate Players','Immaculate Players',1017079070,'Rule 1962/2 (Power=1)\nImmaculate Players\n\n An Immaculate Player is a Player whose Stain is zero.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n Being the only Immaculate Player is a Win Condition. Upon the\n report of such a Win, the Herald shall expunge N Blots per\n Player, where N is the Stain of the Player(s) with the lowest\n non-zero Stain.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404885,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1712,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1017079070,'Rule 1712/14 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less\n the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other\n entities during that same Nomic Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the\n number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that\n number shall be allowed to stand.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. In addition, the Auction shall be conducted in Stems\n with only Acolytes being allowed to bid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404886,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1714,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Lawlessness','Lawlessness',1017079070,'Rule 1714/8 (Power=1)\nLawlessness\n\n A Lawless Player is a Player with more than 20 Blots.\n\n Any Player may at any time publicly allege that another Player\n is Lawless. If the allegation is incorrect, the Player who made\n the allegation commits the Class 15 Crime of Persecution.\n Otherwise, the following events occur in order:\n\n (i) if the Lawless Player is the Speaker, the Speaker-Elect\n immediately becomes Speaker, and the Lawless Player\n ceases to be Speaker;\n\n (ii) the Lawless Player is removed from any Offices e holds;\n and\n\n (iii) the Lawless Player is deregistered.\n\n If a Player is deregistered according to the provisions of this\n Rule, e may not register again until a month has passed from eir\n deregistration.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would prohibit a\n Lawless Player from being deregistered.\n\n[CFJ 1059: Rule 1714 should be interpreted such that an allegation of\n Lawlessness sent to the PF must contain an explicit declaration that\n a particular Player is Lawless.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3577 (Zefram), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4136 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404887,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1747,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Pardoning Lawlessness','Pardoning Lawlessness',1017079070,'Rule 1747/5 (Power=1)\nPardoning Lawlessness\n\n The Clerk of the Courts has the power to Pardon Fugitives from\n Justice that have been deregistered for Lawlessness. The Clerk\n may not exercise this power more than once per Nomic month, and\n may not Pardon the same person twice in a given term of Office\n (although, if re-elected later, e may again Pardon that person).\n The Clerk of the Courts Pardons a Fugitive from Justice by\n publicly announcing e is doing so. Then the following events\n shall occur:\n\n i) The Clerk of the Courts shall expunge as many of the\n Fugitive\'s Blots as required to reduce eir Stain to one\n less than the threshold for Lawlessness, and notify the\n Herald of this action.\n\n ii) After the above step has been completed, the Fugitive may\n reregister as a Player.\n\n iii) The Pardoned Player shall then publish a Formal Apology\n for eir Lawlessness. The CotC may include a list of up to\n ten Prescribed Words in eir Pardon.\n\n iv) For three months after being Pardoned, the Pardoned Player\n may only use Indulgences to expunge Blots from eir record\n and may not transfer any Indulgences for any other\n purpose.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule governing Lawlessness,\n or when a deregistered Player may reregister.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3586 (Vlad), Nov. 14 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3931 (Crito), Oct. 17 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4038 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404888,'rcs','00000001.00000044',1437,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002','Fugitives from Justice','Fugitives from Justice',1017079070,'Rule 1437/6 (Power=1)\nFugitives from Justice\n\n When a Player deregisters or is deregistered, e keeps eir Stain\n (though it may be modified by other Rules). A non-Player with a\n non-zero Stain is known as a Fugitive from Justice.\n\n At the beginning of the month, the Herald shall expunge half the\n Blots of each Fugitive from Justice; however, no Fugitive from\n Justice shall have eir Stain reduced to less than one by this\n method.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1458, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2789 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002'),(404889,'rcs','00000001.00000045',1919,'Amended(1) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000','Installing Officers through Proposal','Installing Officers through Proposal',1017932166,'Rule 1919/1 (Power=2)\nInstalling Officers through Proposal\n\n A Player may be Installed into an Office by the adoption of a\n Democratic Proposal. If that Office is already held by a Player,\n that Player is removed from the Office. The Player named in the\n Proposal then becomes the Electee to that Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3898 (Wes), Aug. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000'),(404890,'rcs','00000001.00000045',2019,'Created by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1017932166,'Rule 2019/0 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n At any time during the Voting Period of an Ordinary Proposal,\n the Speaker may Veto that Proposal with the Support of one-third\n of all Oligarchs, rounded down.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002'),(404891,'rcs','00000001.00000045',879,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002','Quorum','Quorum',1017932166,'Rule 879/15 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs\n cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not Veto it.\n\n A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if:\n (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or\n (2) at least one-fifth of all Players\n cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be\n determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy\n Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the\n time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002'),(404892,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1023,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Definition of \"As Soon As Possible\"','Definition of \"As Soon As Possible\"',1017935233,'Rule 1023/15 (Power=2)\nDefinition of \"As Soon As Possible\"\n\n Whenever a Player is required to perform an action \"as soon\n as possible\", then e is required to perform the action within\n a week.\n\n A Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the\n Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to\n detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness.\n\n This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its\n requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have.\n Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be\n performed \"as soon as possible\" may be performed without\n incurring a penalty.\n\n Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to\n non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.\n\n[CFJ 1075: Rule 1023 should be interpreted such that no Rule with\n lower precedence than it can succeed in prohibiting activity of a\n purely discussionary nature.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404893,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1016,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Activity Levels','Activity Levels',1017935233,'Rule 1016/12 (Power=2)\nActivity Levels\n\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only active players may vote, make proposals, or hold office.\n Inactive players may not be required by the rules to perform any\n duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can\n require inactive players to perform that duty or action. Frozen\n players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or\n action.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404894,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1042,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1017935233,'Rule 1042/17 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more\n than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a\n public forum, that player is Noisy.\n\n A player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused\n another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy\n player to become Quiet by sending a message to a public forum in\n which e identifies the player and states that e causes that\n player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet\n continuously for two weeks, Inactive continuously for two\n months, or Frozen continuously for two years, e becomes Silent.\n\n Any player may publicly allege that some other player has\n abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only\n if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation\n that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall\n publicly confirm or deny the allegation.\n\n If the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall\n occur in order:\n\n (i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15\n Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and\n the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;\n\n (ii) the Silent player is deregistered.\n\n The Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as\n of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming\n the allegation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404895,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1841,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Granting Power of Attorney','Granting Power of Attorney',1017935233,'Rule 1841/5 (Power=1)\nGranting Power of Attorney\n\n (a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered\n for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of\n Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified\n in this Rule.\n\n (b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following\n conditions are met:\n (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the\n Holder;\n (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or\n immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement,\n publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA;\n (3) the Holder is Active; and\n (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the\n reasons listed in (d).\n\n (c) The grant of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants\n eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder consents to\n the grant, or at the time specified by the Grantor,\n whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at\n which the grant of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no\n more than seven says from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later\n specifications are without effect for the purposes of this\n Rule.\n\n (d) The grant of PoA is withdrawn if:\n (1) the period of the grant specified by the Grantor\n expires;\n (2) the Grantor publically withdraws the grant;\n (3) the Grantor is deregistered;\n (4) the Holder ceases to be active or is deregistered; or\n (5) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three\n months.\n\n (e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other\n Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.\n\n (f) Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player who\n has granted PoA to another Player as described in this rule\n shall be deregistered while the grant of PoA is in effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404896,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1555,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Electees and Removal from Office','Electees and Removal from Office',1017935233,'Rule 1555/8 (Power=1)\nElectees and Removal from Office\n\n A Player who wins an Election for an Office, or is installed\n into Office by a Proposal, becomes the Electee to that Office,\n as well as its holder.\n\n When the Electee to an Office is retired from that Office, e\n ceases to be the Electee to that Office, but continues to hold\n the Office.\n\n When the Electee to an Office is removed from that Office, e\n ceases to be Electee to that Office. Furthermore, if the Electee\n currently holds the Office, the Speaker becomes the holder of\n that Office, unless another Rule provides that a different\n Player is to hold the Office.\n\n When a non-Electee is removed from an Office and there is an\n Electee to that Office, then the Electee becomes the holder of\n the Office. If there is no Electee, the Office is held by the\n Speaker.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters, is deregistered, or ceases to be\n active, e is removed from all Offices e holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2577, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2781 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3898 (Wes), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404897,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1728,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1017935233,'Rule 1728/10 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and\n only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N\n Supporters, where N is a positive integer. The phrase \"Without\n Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1 Objection\", and the\n phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1 Supporter\".\n\n A player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an\n unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform\n a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and\n only if:\n\n (a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the\n announcement of intent to perform the action;\n\n (b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N\n Objections, at least four days have passed since the\n announcement made under (a) of this rule;\n\n (c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or\n\n (1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by\n virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and\n\n (2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n holder of that position when e attempts to perform the\n action;\n\n (d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the\n action dependently;\n\n (e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of\n this rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections,\n fewer than N players have publicly posted objections\n to the performance of the action; or\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at\n least N players other than the player who made the\n announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly\n posted support for the performance of the action;\n\n (f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies\n whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections\n or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit\n the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not\n permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (g) e announces that e performs the described action.\n\n A dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).\n\n A player who posts an objection to the performance of an action\n may publicly retract eir objection. If e does so, e shall be\n deemed not have posted an objection to the performance of that\n action for the purposes of (e)(1) of this rule.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n A rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may\n restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that\n specific action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404898,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1963,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1017935233,'Rule 1963/3 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect; or\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as\n possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by\n correctly announcing that at least one of the above\n conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases\n to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404899,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1729,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4277 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002','Insanity','Insanity',1017935233,'Rule 1729/4 (Power=1)\nInsanity\n\n An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule\n letter.\n (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not\n better.)\n\n For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended:\n there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been\n bended.\n Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor.\n The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and\n professor.\n\n And should a Player split eir votes \'tween FOR and\n AGAINST like crazy,\n E will annoy Assessors (who are known for being lazy)\n So should eir votes cast differ from each other, this Rule\'s\n broke,\n With the breaker being the voting Player, as sure as if e\'d\n spoke.\n\n And should such a Proposal\'s Voting Period begin,\n but no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win.\n\nCFJ 1178, Judged TRUE Nov. 18 1999: \"Rule 1729 permits voting on\nInsane Proposals by private message to the Assessor, even when the\nprevailing mode of voting on Proposals is Public.\"\n\n[CFJ 1078, Judged TRUE 8 January 1998: \"Morendil violated Rule 1729 by\n voting on Proposal 3640 in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3527 (Oerjan), Jul. 8 1997 (unattributed)\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), Feb. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3880 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4138 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4277 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002'),(404900,'rcs','00000001.00000046',879,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Quorum','Quorum',1017935233,'Rule 879/16 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs\n cast votes on it.\n\n A democratic proposal achieves quorum if:\n (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or\n (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on\n it.\n\n Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the\n number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players\n at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it\n was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404901,'rcs','00000001.00000046',698,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1017935233,'Rule 698/8 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some\n Rule.\n\n Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be\n considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as\n described in other Rules.\n\n The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into\n account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all\n Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by\n the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the\n Caller and those players barred by the Caller, shall be\n eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the\n Caller, shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, and the Caller is a player, then the Caller\n shall be eligible.\n\n If this still does not result in there being any players\n eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora\n that is a generational ship whose members are in suspended\n animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when\n we arrive at our destination and begin to thaw out.\n\n This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules\n which would result in there being no Players eligible to\n Judge a given CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404902,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1568,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Non-active Judges','Non-active Judges',1017935233,'Rule 1568/6 (Power=1)\nNon-active Judges\n\n A player who ceases to be active while selected as the judge of\n one or more calls for judgement (CFJs) commits the infraction of\n Judge Inactivity. This infraction is to be reported by the\n Clerk of the Courts, and has a penalty of 0.1 Indulgences for\n each CFJs for which the player was selected as judge when e\n ceased to be active.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404903,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1827,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Granting or Denying Motions','Granting or Denying Motions',1017935233,'Rule 1827/4 (Power=1)\nGranting or Denying Motions\n\n A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by\n the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was\n received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons\n for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by\n sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the\n Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.\n\n The effect of granting a Motion depends on the nature of the\n Motion granted, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to\n perform as requested by the Motion.\n\n Upon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk\n shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on\n the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the\n Motion of that determination.\n\n If a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within five days of\n when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, e\n commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Slow Motion, detected and\n reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If this occurs, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as\n usual.\n\n If a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original\n Judge of that case is not active or is not a player, then a new\n Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4160 (root), 5 June 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404904,'rcs','00000001.00000046',911,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1017935233,'Rule 911/10 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration\n mandated by the appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called\n Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each\n Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been\n selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar\n is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any\n remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the\n CotC, from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board.\n iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider.\n iv) E is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the\n matter under consideration, and this restriction does not\n prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the\n CotC for the Board.\n v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three\n eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the\n Board.\n vi) E is frozen.\n\n A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to\n replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player\n consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the\n Courts of the appointment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (ROnald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404905,'rcs','00000001.00000046',559,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','The Registrar','The Registrar',1017935233,'Rule 559/20 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and preferred email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404906,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1599,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Overdue Debts','Overdue Debts',1017935233,'Rule 1599/8 (Power=1)\nOverdue Debts\n\n The Executor of the creditor of any unsatisfied debt may, at any\n time, demand the debtor to satisfy that debt, provided e has not\n already done so. E does so by sending a message to the debtor\n setting forth the demand. The debtor shall have seven days to\n satisfy the debt from the time the demand is sent, except that\n if the debtor\'s Executor is not active at the time the demand is\n sent, the debtor shall instead have seven days from the time eir\n Executor becomes active to satisfy the debt. Time during which\n a debt is disputed is not counted for any purpose of this Rule.\n\n A debt not satisfied within the time allowed by this Rule\n becomes delinquent when that time elapses. It ceases to be\n delinquent when it is satisfied.\n\n Any Player who is either:\n (a) the Executor of an entity which owes a delinquent debt, or\n (b) a Limited Executor of an entity which has no Executor and\n which owes a delinquent debt, where:\n (1) that Player has the authority to execute a transfer for\n that entity which would satisfy the delinquent debt, and\n (2) that entity possesses sufficient Property such that the\n delinquent debt can be satisfied;\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Persistent Indebtedness when\n that debt first becomes delinquent, and commits it again every\n seven days thereafter for as long as the debt remains\n delinquent. This Infraction may be reported by the creditor of\n the delinquent debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3604 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3851 (General Chaos), Apr. 12 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4165 (Kelly), 11 June 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404907,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1887,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Default Procedure for Auctions','Default Procedure for Auctions',1017935233,'Rule 1887/16 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Auctions\n\n When an Auction is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the Auctioneer shall select a rules-defined Auction\n Procedure and publicly announce eir selection. If e does not\n specify which procedure is used, the Default Auction Procedure\n shall be used.\n\n The details specified herein are for the Default Auction\n Procedure.\n\n (a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for collecting\n bids and announcing the result of the Auction. The\n Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the Auction. If the\n Rules require or allow an Auction to be initiated, but do\n not specify which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker\n shall initiate it.\n\n (b) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: Each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule requiring a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the\n Auction cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of Lots: Each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Auction begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that an Auction is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Auctioneer, the Auction Currency, the number\n of items, and the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Starting Bid: The Starting Bid is the minimum possible\n value of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting\n Bid is equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (g) Making Bids: Each Bidder may make as many Bids as e desires\n during the Auction. A Bid is a public message, announcing\n that the sender is bidding in that particular Auction, and\n the amount of eir Bid. A Bid is only valid if it satisfies\n the following conditions:\n (1) The Bid is not made before the start of the Auction, or\n after its end.\n (2) The amount Bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the Auction\n Currency.\n (3) The amount Bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (h) Canceling Bids: A Bid may be cancelled by its Bidder by\n publicly posting such, clearly identifying the Bid to be\n cancelled, while the Auction is in progress.\n\n (i) End of Auction: If, one week after the Auction started,\n there have been no Bids made, the Auction ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Auction ends when 72 hours have\n passed without a valid Bid higher than the Nth-highest Bid\n (at the time the Bid is made) having been made. The Auction\n shall end 14 days after the Auction has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (j) Winning Bids: When the Auction ends, the winning Bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid Bids in that auction (or\n all valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled Bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids.\n\n The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the Nth highest Bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled Bids in the auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were fewer than N valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n\n As soon as possible after the end of the Auction, the\n Auctioneer shall announce the winning Bids and issue to each\n winning Bidder a separate bill for each of eir winning Bids.\n\n Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the\n winning Bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404908,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1983,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Vickrey Auctions','Vickrey Auctions',1017935233,'Rule 1983/2 (Power=1)\nVickrey Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Bidders: Every Player not on Hold may Bid in an Auction.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir Bid. Any\n Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer may bid only\n in the first 72 hours of the Auction.\n\n (b) Making Bids: If the Bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then the Bids must be made in a message to a\n Public Forum. Otherwise, the Bidder may either Bid in a\n Public Forum or privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (c) End of Auction: The Auction shall end one week after it\n begins.\n\n (d) The Final Auction Price is:\n (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid\n Bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled Bids in\n the Auction;\n (2) The Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid\n uncancelled Bids.\n For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of\n items being Auctioned.\n\n The Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a\n Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in\n progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much\n about their bidding as they wish.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404909,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1984,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Raffles','Raffles',1017935233,'Rule 1984/4 (Power=1)\nRaffles\n\n There is a type of Auction named a Raffle. The Auction Procedure\n for a Raffle is as follows:\n\n (a) Auctioneer: The Auctioneer is responsible for conducting the\n Raffle. The Auctioneer is herein known as the Riff-Raff.\n\n (b) Entrants: Every Player not on Hold may enter the Raffle.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player enters the\n Raffle. However, if a rule prohibits a player from bidding\n in this Auction, then e is also prohibited from buying\n tickets.\n\n (c) Raffle Currency: Each Raffle is conducted in one particular\n currency. The Rule requiring a particular Raffle must\n specify the currency to be used, or the Raffle cannot take\n place.\n\n (d) Number of Lots: Each Raffle is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Raffle.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: The Raffle begins at the time the first\n correct and legal announcement that a Raffle is begun, as\n defined in other Rules, is published, together with the\n identity of the Riff-Raff, the Raffle Currency, the number\n of items, and the Ticket Price.\n\n (f) Ticket Price: All tickets shall have the same Ticket Price.\n If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal\n to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.\n\n (g) Buying Tickets: An Entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee of\n the Ticket Price in the Raffle Currency to the Bank,\n provided that the purchase is not made before the start of\n the Auction, or after its end. Each Entrant may buy as many\n tickets as e desires during the Auction.\n\n (h) End of Raffle: If, one week after the Raffle started, no\n Raffle tickets have been bought, the Raffle ends, and has no\n winner. Otherwise the Raffle ends when 72 hours have passed\n without a valid ticket purchase having been made. The Raffle\n shall end 14 days after the Raffle has started, if it has\n not ended earlier.\n\n (i) Winning Tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall\n randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets as having won the\n Raffle. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and\n multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same Entrant may win.\n If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all\n valid Raffle tickets shall be considered to have won the\n Raffle.\n\n (j) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: Within a week after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price\n in the Raffle Currency if:\n (1) The Raffle had at least three separate winning Entrants,\n not including the Riff-Raff; and\n (2) The Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.\n\n (k) Announcing Winners: As soon as possible after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets.\n Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each\n winning Entrant for each of eir winning tickets.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4177 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4265 (Steve), 17 March 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404910,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1375,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002','Speaker Going On Hold','Speaker Going On Hold',1017935233,'Rule 1375/8 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Going On Hold\n\n A Speaker who ceases to be active while e is still Speaker\n commits the class 10 crime of Speaker Inactivity.\n\n Whenever the Speaker is not active, a Speaker Transition occurs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1375, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1428, Feb. 5 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002'),(404911,'rcs','00000001.00000046',1996,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002','The Mapkeepor','The Mapkeepor',1017935233,'Rule 1996/2 (Power=1)\nThe Mapkeepor\n\n The Mapkeepor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the\n Land of Arcadia.\n\n The Mapkeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (i) the ownership and land type of all existing land;\n (ii) all changes in the ownership and land type of existing\n land since the most recent report; and\n (iii) the location for the previous week and the current week of\n each entity or instrument with a defined non-secret\n location.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002'),(404912,'rcs','00000001.00000046',2003,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002','Moving in Arcadia','Moving in Arcadia',1017935233,'Rule 2003/3 (Power=1)\nMoving in Arcadia\n\n Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units to\n move about in the Land of Arcadia, and each Organization may\n expend up to 5 Movement Units. Movement Units are not\n transferable, and do not persist from one week to the next.\n\n A player makes a Move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the location\n (the Destination) into which e is attempting to move. If the\n Player has enough Movement Units left this week, and the Move is\n valid, the Player\'s Location is changed to the Destination. So\n long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Movement Units, a Player may move as many times as e wishes in a\n single week.\n\n Players may expend:\n * 10 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Mountains.\n * 5 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Hills.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness, Subtype Forest or Desert.\n * 3 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Wilderness with no Subtype.\n * 2 Movement Units to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Farmland.\n * 1 Movement Unit to move into an adjacent unit of Type\n Urbana.\n\n A player may also expend 10 Movement Units to Explore, by\n notifying the Mapkeepor that e does so. If a Player Explores,\n all units of Aether within a Penguin Distance of 2 from the\n Player\'s current location are assigned a new Land Type and\n possibly Subtype. For each unit of Aether affected, there is a:\n * 0.15 probability it becomes the same type and subtype\n as the land at the location of the exploring Player;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Mountains;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Hills;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Wilderness/Forest;\n * 0.10 probability it becomes Wilderness/Desert;\n * 0.05 probability it becomes Farmland, no subtype;\n * 0.20 probability it becomes Water, no subtype.\n\n The random choice of new Land Type and Subtype is to be made by\n the Mapkeepor. Affected units take on the new Land Type at the\n beginning of the next week, and all such changes shall be\n indicated in the Mapkeepor\'s Report for that week.\n\n Moves explicitly allowed by this Rule, including Exploring, are\n valid, unless made invalid by other Rules. Unless explicity\n permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002'),(404913,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1986,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Role-Based Powers','Role-Based Powers',1019510970,'Rule 1986/3 (Power=2)\nRole-Based Powers\n\n A Scribe may Rubberstamp a Proposal by paying a Fee in Papyri,\n or receiving the Support of a number of other Scribes, equal to\n the number of Proposals that the Scribe has previously\n Rubberstamped in the current Nomic Week (minimum zero). A\n Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable: this does not\n change its Distribution Fee.\n\n An Acolyte may absolve (remove) 1 Blot from any Entity by paying\n Fee in Indulgences, or receiving the Support of a number of\n other Acolytes, equal to the number of such Absolutions the\n Acolyte has previously performed in the current Nomic Week\n (minimum zero).\n\n An Acolyte may Exorcise a Dissolute Entity with the Support of\n another Acolyte. The effect of Exorcism is to instantly\n transfer all of the Entity\'s Indulgences to the Bank.\n\n An Acolyte with the Support of a Scribe, or a Scribe with the\n Support of an Acolyte, may Bless an Undistributed Proposal. A\n moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Proposal becomes\n Democratic if it is not already.\n\n A Politician, with the Support of another Poltician, may Unbless\n an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed Proposal is no\n longer Blessed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4174 (Kelly), 7 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4254 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404914,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1954,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Distribution of Papyri','Distribution of Papyri',1019510970,'Rule 1954/6 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Papyri\n\n As soon as possible after the fifteenth day of each month, the\n Promotor shall Auction a number of Papyri. The Promotor must\n always auction at least one Papyrus. Otherwise, the Promotor may\n auction as many Papyri as e wishes.\n\n The items to be auctioned are individual Papyri, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Papyri to be\n Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4056 (t), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404915,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1770,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Distributing Proposals','Distributing Proposals',1019510970,'Rule 1770/15 (Power=1)\nDistributing Proposals\n\n During each Week, the Promotor must either distribute every\n Proposal that was Distributable at the beginning of that Week,\n or announce that there were no such Proposals. Failure to do so\n is the Class 1 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness, which any\n Player may detect and report.\n\n The distribution of each Proposal shall be accompanied by the\n identity of its Proposing Entity, and an indication of the\n Proposal\'s Chamber. However, the failure of the Promotor to\n distribute any of these accompaniments with a Proposal does not\n deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect.\n\n A Proposal is legally distributed only if it is explicitly\n marked as such. When a Proposal is distributed, it is removed\n from the Proposal Pool.\n\n The Promotor shall not distribute any Proposal which is not\n Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed. If\n the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was Distributable\n at the time it was distributed, e commits the Class 2 Crime of\n Illegal Abortion.\n\n The Promotor aborts a Proposal by publishing an announcement to\n that effect, clearly identifying the Proposal which has been\n aborted. When a Proposal is aborted:\n\n (a) the Voting Period for that Proposal immediately ends, if it\n has not ended already;\n (b) all Votes cast on that Proposal are cancelled, and the\n Proposal fails;\n (c) the Assessor is relieved of any duty to report on Votes\n cast on that Proposal; and\n (d) the Proposal is added to the Proposal Pool.\n\n The distribution of an Undistributable Proposal, when the\n Promotor knows that the Proposal is Undistributable, is the\n Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. The distribution of\n a text purporting to be a Proposal, when the Promotor knows that\n the text is not a Proposal, is the Class 5 Crime of Promotor\n Fraud.\n\n[In upholding the Judgement of CFJ 1089, the Board of Appeals held\n that in order for a Proposal to have been legally distributed, it is\n necessary (although perhaps not sufficient) that some text with\n demonstrably the same effects as the Proposal have been distributed.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3731 (Steve), Apr. 24 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3841 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3842 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3922 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4005 (Taral), May 8 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4034 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404916,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1449,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','The Assessor','The Assessor',1019510970,'Rule 1449/15 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting\n Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the\n results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the\n identity and voting power for Proposals in each Chamber, for all\n entities with nonzero voting power in at least one Chamber.\n\n (c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting\n Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1\n between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404917,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1933,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1019510970,'Rule 1933/4 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Every Proposal shall be in (or have) exactly one defined Chamber\n out of the following possibile Chambers:\n (A) Ordinary;\n (B) Democratic;\n (C) Parliamentary.\n\n Rules to the nonwithstanding, a Proposal can never be Ordinary\n if its Adoption Index is two (2) or greater.\n\n Every Proposals is initially Ordinary unless the above\n limitation applies to it, in which case it is initially\n Democratic. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as\n specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to\n two (2).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404918,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1950,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Voting Power','Voting Power',1019510970,'Rule 1950/3 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) An Oligarch: one;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e\n possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots\n e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of:\n (a) for an Oligarch, two;\n (b) for a non-Oligarch, five.\n (2) The Bank: zero;\n (3) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Parliamentary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) One, if the entity is one of the following:\n (a) The Oligarchy;\n (b) The Democracy;\n (c) The Speakership.\n (2) Any other entity, zero.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote.\n (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast\n through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules\n for each specific entity with Voting Power on\n Parliamentary Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404919,'rcs','00000001.00000047',2020,'Created by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Parliamentary Votes','Parliamentary Votes',1019510970,'Rule 2020/0 (Power=1)\nParliamentary Votes\n\n For a Parliamentary Proposal, the Assessor will count as\n \"Preliminary Votes\" after the voting period has ended:\n 1. Communications from Oligarch Players or their executors\n which would have been legal votes if the Proposal had been\n Ordinary.\n 2. Communications from non-Oligarch Players or their\n executors which would have been legal votes if the\n Proposal had been Democratic.\n 3. Public communications from an untainted Speaker,\n indicating a Veto of the Proposal.\n\n If the preliminary votes of the Oligarch Players (both voting\n index and quorum, with the exception that the Speaker\'s Veto\n does not affect this determination of quorum) would have passed\n the Proposal were they deemed to be Ordinary Votes on an\n Ordinary Proposal, the Oligarchy shall be deemed to have cast 1\n vote FOR the Proposal, otherwise the Oligarchy will be deemed to\n have cast 1 vote AGAINST.\n\n If the preliminary votes of the non-Oligarch Players (both\n voting index and quorum) would have passed the Proposal were\n they deemed to be Democratic Votes on a Democratic Proposal, the\n Democracy shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote FOR the Proposal,\n otherwise the Democracy will be deemed to have cast 1 vote\n AGAINST.\n\n If the untainted Speaker Vetoed the Proposal, the Speakership\n shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote AGAINST the Proposal,\n otherwise the Speakership shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote\n FOR the Proposal.\n\n The timing of all votes cast on Parliamentary Proposals shall be\n deemed to be an instant before the end of the Voting Period.\n There are no other specific mechanisms for casting votes on\n Parliamentary Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404920,'rcs','00000001.00000047',2021,'Created by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Chamber Procedure','Chamber Procedure',1019510970,'Rule 2021 (Power=2)\nChamber Procedure\n\n The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is initially 0.1 Voting\n Entitlements. Any Politician may change the Chamber of a\n Proposal that is not Sane to another Chamber of eir choice, by\n publicly paying this fee, provided that it is legal for the\n Proposal to be in the new Chamber. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is\n changed via this Rule:\n\n (i) The Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled;\n (ii) If the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as\n described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal Pool\n with its Distributability and other characteristics\n intact.\n\n An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a\n Distributed Proposal for which the Voting Period has not ended.\n If this happens, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere,\n but remains Distributable and becomes Democratic and Sane.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404921,'rcs','00000001.00000047',879,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Quorum','Quorum',1019510970,'Rule 879/17 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs\n cast votes on it.\n\n A democratic proposal achieves quorum if:\n (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or\n (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on\n it.\n\n Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the\n number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players\n at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it\n was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n A Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the\n entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have\n cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404922,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1946,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Distribution of Voting Entitlements','Distribution of Voting Entitlements',1019510970,'Rule 1946/8 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Voting Entitlements\n\n (a) The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is\n equal to the number of registered Players multiplied by the\n Voting Entitlements per Player as set in the Assessor\'s\n Budget.\n\n (b) The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is\n the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities\n other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting\n Entitlements owned by the Bank which have been auctioned off\n to Winning Bidders in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions but\n not yet paid for.\n\n (c) The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the\n IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL,\n the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.\n\n (d) If the Voting Entitlement Surplus is positive at the\n beginning of the month, the Assessor shall as soon as\n possible auction off the surplus Voting Entitlements. The\n items to be auctioned are lots of 0.1 VEs; the number of\n items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus multiplied\n by 10, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer\n shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be conducted in\n Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4058 (Peekee), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4117 (Blob), Mar. 6 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4247 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404923,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1712,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1019510970,'Rule 1712/15 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less\n the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other\n entities during that same Nomic Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation. If the Herald makes an error in determining the\n number of Indulgences to be Auctioned, in good faith, that\n number shall be allowed to stand.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404924,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1993,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','The Land of Arcadia','The Land of Arcadia',1019510970,'Rule 1993/1 (Power=2)\nThe Land of Arcadia\n\n Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the\n Map). The Map is a record kept by the Office of the Mapkeepor.\n\n The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units\n of Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is a unique instance\n of nonfungible Property specified by a pair of integers known as\n its Latitude and Longitude.\n\n Every unique pair of integers within the limits defined in the\n Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of\n Land. No other Units of Land may exist. Units of Land may only\n be created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and\n Longitude defined in the Rules.\n\n All values for Latitude must lie between -9 and +9, inclusive.\n All values for Longitude must lie between -9 and +9, inclusive.\n\n The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units\n of Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404925,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1997,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Defined Land Types and Subtypes','Defined Land Types and Subtypes',1019510970,'Rule 1997/1 (Power=1)\nDefined Land Types and Subtypes\n\n In addition to Aether, the following Land Types are defined:\n (a) Black;\n (b) White.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404926,'rcs','00000001.00000047',1998,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Land Topology','Land Topology',1019510970,'Rule 1998/2 (Power=1)\nLand Topology\n\n Two Units of Land are Adjacent if and only if:\n (i) They have the same Latitude, and their Longitudes differ\n by exactly one; or\n (ii) They have the same Longitude, and their Latitudes differ\n by exactly one.\n\n The Penguin Distance between two given Units of Land is the\n minimum number of Single Waddles required to Travel from one of\n the given Units to the other given Unit, where one Single Waddle\n is the Penguin Distance required to Travel from one Unit of Land\n to an Adjacent Unit of Land.\n\n Two Units of Land are said to be Connected by a specific Type or\n Subtype of Land if it is possible to travel from the first Unit\n to the second by Waddling only over Land of that specific Type\n or Subtype.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4217 (Syllepsis), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404927,'rcs','00000001.00000047',2003,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Moving in Arcadia','Moving in Arcadia',1019510970,'Rule 2003/4 (Power=1)\nMoving in Arcadia\n\n Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units, and\n an Organization may expend up to 5 Movement Units, to move about\n in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferrable,\n and do not persist from one week to the next.\n\n A player makes a move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the\n specifics of the move. So long as e does not spend more than\n eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many\n times as e wishes in a single week.\n\n Entities may expend:\n * 2 Movement Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent\n Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is\n not Aether.\n * 5 Movement Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent\n Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not\n Aether;\n * 5 Movement Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e\n owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is\n located at that Land Unit.\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s\n current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than\n Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n\n Unless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are\n invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404928,'rcs','00000001.00000047',2022,'Created by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Sente and Gote','Sente and Gote',1019510970,'Rule 2022/0 (Power=1)\nSente and Gote\n\n On the fifteenth of each Nomic Month, the following actions\n occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the\n Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:\n\n (i) Every Land Unit that is not connected by its own type to\n a unit of Aether shall be transformed to Aether;\n\n (ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so\n transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.\n\n (iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the Land\n Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.\n\n (iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land\n Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land\n Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units\n of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units\n of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.\n\n (v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out:\n (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times\n the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players whose\n location has Sente;\n (b) to the owner of each Land Unit that has Sente as is\n not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau\n * 3 Stems if the Weather is Plenty;\n * 2 Stems if the Weather is Fair;\n * 1 Stem if the Weather is Foul.\n\n Sente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on\n the fifteenth of each Nomic Month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404929,'rcs','00000001.00000048',2021,'Created by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Chamber Procedure','Chamber Procedure',1019511059,'Rule 2021/0 (Power=2)\nChamber Procedure\n\n The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is initially 0.1 Voting\n Entitlements. Any Politician may change the Chamber of a\n Proposal that is not Sane to another Chamber of eir choice, by\n publicly paying this fee, provided that it is legal for the\n Proposal to be in the new Chamber. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is\n changed via this Rule:\n\n (i) The Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled;\n (ii) If the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as\n described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal Pool\n with its Distributability and other characteristics\n intact.\n\n An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a\n Distributed Proposal for which the Voting Period has not ended.\n If this happens, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere,\n but remains Distributable and becomes Democratic and Sane.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404930,'rcs','00000001.00000048',2022,'Created by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','Sente and Gote','Sente and Gote',1019511059,'Rule 2022/0 (Power=1)\nSente and Gote\n\n On the fifteenth of each Nomic Month, the following actions\n occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the\n Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:\n\n (i) Every Land Unit that is not connected by its own type to\n a unit of Aether shall be transformed to Aether;\n\n (ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so\n transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.\n\n (iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the\n Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.\n\n (iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land\n Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land\n Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units\n of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units\n of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.\n\n (v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out:\n (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times\n the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players whose\n location has Sente;\n (b) to the owner of each Land Unit that has Sente as is\n not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau\n * 3 Stems if the Weather is Plenty;\n * 2 Stems if the Weather is Fair;\n * 1 Stem if the Weather is Foul.\n\n Sente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on\n the fifteenth of each Nomic Month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(404931,'rcs','00000001.00000049',1729,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4277 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002','Insanity','Insanity',1020782315,'Rule 1729/4 (Power=1)\nInsanity\n\n An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule\n letter.\n (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not\n better.)\n\n For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended:\n there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been\n bended.\n Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor.\n The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and\n professor.\n\n And should a Player split eir votes \'tween FOR and\n AGAINST like crazy,\n E will annoy Assessors (who are known for being lazy)\n So should eir votes cast differ from each other, this Rule\'s\n broke,\n With the breaker being the voting Player, as sure as if e\'d\n spoke.\n\n And should such a Proposal\'s Voting Period begin,\n but no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win.\n\nCFJ 1178, Judged TRUE Nov. 18 1999: \"Rule 1729 permits voting on\nInsane Proposals by private message to the Assessor, even when the\nprevailing mode of voting on Proposals is Public.\"\n\n[CFJ 1078, Judged TRUE 8 January 1998: \"Morendil violated Rule 1729 by\n voting on Proposal 3640 in the Public Forum.\"]\n\n[In CFJ 1354 (6 May 2002), Judge root found that Winning wasn\'t\n sufficient reward to make an Insane Proposal coercive in the sense of\n Rule 1003. This judgement depended on root\'s assessment of the\n current rewards for Winning, not on Winning\'s intrinsic appeal.\n Thus, \"I do not find that the possibility of awarding one Player a\n Patent Title and 100 Stems is a sufficient \'punishment\' alone to\n coerce anyone into voting FOR the Proposal.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3527 (Oerjan), Jul. 8 1997 (unattributed)\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), Feb. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3880 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4138 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4277 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002'),(404932,'rcs','00000001.00000049',1922,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1020782315,'Rule 1922/3 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices.\n\n (e) Groovy, which may be awarded to any Player Winning the Game\n at least once since the introduction of this Patent Title\n and demonstrating eir total coolness by Winning the Game at\n least once by each of at least three distinct win\n conditions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002'),(404933,'rcs','00000001.00000050',2003,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002','Moving in Arcadia','Moving in Arcadia',1021644546,'Rule 2003/5 (Power=1)\nMoving in Arcadia\n\n Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units, and\n an Organization may expend up to 5 Movement Units, to move about\n in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferrable,\n and do not persist from one week to the next.\n\n A player makes a move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the\n specifics of the move. So long as e does not spend more than\n eir allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many\n times as e wishes in a single week.\n\n Entities may expend:\n * 2 Movement Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent\n Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is\n not Aether.\n * 5 Movement Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent\n Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not\n Aether;\n * 5 Movement Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e\n owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is\n located at that Land Unit.\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s\n current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than\n Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit\n that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of\n type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to any Land\n Type of eir choice other than Aether. The Mapkeepor will\n make the random determination. This movement has no effect\n if there are no qualifying Land Units. The Mapkeepor must\n announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this\n movement. The change occurs at the time of the first legal\n announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s\n Land Type has changed.\n\n Unless explicity permitted by other Rules, all other Moves are\n invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002'),(404934,'rcs','00000001.00000051',955,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal',1022256924,'Rule 955/7 (Power=3)\nVotes Required to Adopt a Proposal\n\n (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be\n counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned\n a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no\n votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index\n shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting\n Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index\n shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of\n votes against.\n\n (b) If the Voting Index is greater than or equal to the Adoption\n Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is\n achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it\n fails.\n\n (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as\n described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except\n as described in this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404935,'rcs','00000001.00000051',991,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Invoking Judgement','Invoking Judgement',1022256924,'Rule 991/5 (Power=2)\nInvoking Judgement\n\n Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the\n Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof\n of the existence of such a dispute.\n\n A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth\n or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming\n perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,\n Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,\n but not required, to take notice of these things.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including\n but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the\n time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to\n that CFJ.\n\n[CFJ 888: Non-Players may make Calls for Judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404936,'rcs','00000001.00000051',2023,'Created by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar','Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar',1022256924,'Rule 2023/0 (Power=1)\nSubmitting a CFJ to the Justiciar\n\n A CFJ may be submitted to the Justiciar. For such a CFJ, the\n Justiciar shall perform all duties and fulfill all roles that\n would otherwise be assigned to the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n All persons are encouraged to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar only\n when there is a good reason not to submit it to the Clerk of the\n Courts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404937,'rcs','00000001.00000051',897,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Barring Players from Judgement','Barring Players from Judgement',1022256924,'Rule 897/3 (Power=1)\nBarring Players from Judgement\n\n A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n Any Player sharing an Executor with the Caller of a CFJ is\n automatically Barred from Judging that CFJ.\n\n When submitting a CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players\n from Judging that CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 897, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404938,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1562,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Excess CFJs','Excess CFJs',1022256924,'Rule 1562/6 (Power=1)\nExcess CFJs\n\n A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during the same Nomic Week is an Excess CFJ.\n\n The Caller of an Excess CFJ commits the Class 1 Infraction of\n Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall dismiss all Excess CFJs. If e\n instead assigns one to a Judge, then the Judge shall Judge it,\n but the Clerk of the Courts commits the Class 2 Infraction of\n Allowing Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Justiciar.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404939,'rcs','00000001.00000051',2024,'Created by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1022256924,'Rule 2024/0 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement submitted in a\n single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked\n CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible\n to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned\n as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.\n\n The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs are Excess CFJs, then the Clerk of\n the Courts shall either assign them all or dismiss them all, at\n eir discretion. If e assigns them all, then e does not commit\n Allowing Excess CFJing by doing so, Rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in\n subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those\n CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those\n CFJs. The Clerk of the Courts shall either treat those CFJs as\n Linked (to each other) or not Linked, as e sees fit. In either\n case, those CFJs are no longer Linked to any of the non-remanded\n CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404940,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1868,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1022256924,'Rule 1868/3 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding\n judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor\n denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.\n\n As soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no\n Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a\n Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial\n Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e\n is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.\n\nCFJ 1186, Judged TRUE Dec. 9 1999: \"The Clerk of the Courts is\nrequired by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time\nthat the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\neligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.\"\n\n[CFJ 1187, Judged TRUE Dec. 8 1999: \"A Judge is considered to be\n assigned to Judge a particular CFJ at the time that the Clerk of the\n Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and no sooner.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404941,'rcs','00000001.00000051',698,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1022256924,'Rule 698/9 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n Each Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ, unless a\n Rule specifically makes em ineligible.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but -\n after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account\n - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:\n\n a) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n b) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n c) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n d) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become\n eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n e) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has\n happened upon a generational ship whose members are in\n suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.\n\n This Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404942,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1871,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Turns for All','Turns for All',1022256924,'Rule 1871/1 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Whenever a Player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs. Whenever there\n are no Players eligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ, all Players\n ineligible solely because of this Rule become eligible again.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404943,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1567,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Making Oneself Ineligible to Judge a CFJ','Making Oneself Ineligible to Judge a CFJ',1022256924,'Rule 1567/10 (Power=1)\nMaking Oneself Ineligible to Judge a CFJ\n\n A Player makes emself ineligible to be the Judge of a specific\n CFJ or type of CFJ by informing the Clerk of the Courts that e\n does so. Such a notice remains in effect for one month, or\n until the Player informs the Clerk of the Courts that it is no\n longer in effect, whichever is soonest.\n\n If a Player makes emself ineligible to be a Judge of a CFJ for\n which e has already been selected as Judge, e commits the Class\n 0.1 Infraction of Shirking Judgeship, to be reported by the\n Clerk of the Courts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404944,'rcs','00000001.00000051',2025,'Created by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Transfer of Jurisdiction','Transfer of Jurisdiction',1022256924,'Rule 2025/0 (Power=1)\nTransfer of Jurisdiction\n\n The Judge of a CFJ (the First Case) may transfer it to the Judge\n of another CFJ (the Second Case), if all of the following are\n true:\n\n a) The Second Judge is eligible to Judge the First Case (or is\n ineligible solely due to the Rule \"Turns for All\").\n b) The First Judge announces the transfer.\n c) The Second Judge consents to the transfer within a week\n after it is announced.\n\n The First CFJ becomes assigned to the Second Judge, and ceases\n to be assigned to the First Judge.\n\n The First CFJ becomes Linked to the Second CFJ, and to any CFJs\n to which the Second CFJ had been Linked. It ceases to be Linked\n to any other CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404945,'rcs','00000001.00000051',408,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Late Judgement','Late Judgement',1022256924,'Rule 408/15 (Power=1)\nLate Judgement\n\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the\n Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by\n announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge\'s Overtime\n Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically\n recused.\n\n A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Class 3\n Infraction of Failure to Judge, to be reported by the Clerk of\n the Courts. E becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one\n month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again,\n whichever is soonest.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 215, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2587, May 1 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Aug. 14 1997, susbstantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Rule 408, Aug. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposl 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404946,'rcs','00000001.00000051',591,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Legal Judgements','Legal Judgements',1022256924,'Rule 591/18 (Power=1)\nLegal Judgements\n\n The Judge of a CFJ Judges it by submitting eir Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. \"Decision\", \"Finding\", and \"Response\" are\n unambiguous synonyms for \"Judgement\".\n\n For a Trial Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the following:\n TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of\n the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence,\n or other material included with the Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1451, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmedned(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404947,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1575,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Standards of Proof','Standards of Proof',1022256924,'Rule 1575/5 (Power=1)\nStandards of Proof\n\n Unless otherwise specified, all Judgements shall be consistent\n with the preponderance of the evidence.\n\n A Judge shall not find that a Player has failed to perform a\n duty unless the preponderance of evidence provided by the Caller\n supports the claim.\n\n A Judge shall not find that a Player has violated a Rule or\n committed a Crime unless the evidence provided by the Caller\n places its certainty beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, a\n Judge shall not find that a Player committed a Crime if that\n Player reasonably believed that eir action or inaction was not a\n Crime at the time it occurred.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2469, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3603 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3653 (General Chaos), Jan. 1 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3968 (Harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404948,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1565,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Dismissal of a CFJ','Dismissal of a CFJ',1022256924,'Rule 1565/10 (Power=1)\nDismissal of a CFJ\n\n A Judgement of DISMISSED should be delivered if and only if one\n or more of the following is true:\n\n i) The CFJ does not contain a single clearly-identified\n Statement.\n\n ii) After a reasonable effort to obtain all relevant\n information, the Judge can neither determine the Statement\n to be true nor determine it to be false.\n\n iii) The Statement does not relate to a matter relevant to the\n Rules.\n\n iv) The CFJ lacks standing, as defined elsewhere.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2683, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3563 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3574 (Kolja A.), Oct. 30 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404949,'rcs','00000001.00000051',502,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Salary for Judges','Salary for Judges',1022256924,'Rule 502/8 (Power=1)\nSalary for Judges\n\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the\n Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out the\n Judicial Salary to the Judge.\n\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is overturned on appeal,\n the Clerk of the Courts shall bill the Judge for the Judicial\n Salary (if any) that was paid out to em for that Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 430 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 13 1993\nAmended by Proposal 502 (Ronald Kunne), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1501, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3635 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404950,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1804,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Appeal of Judicial Orders','Appeal of Judicial Orders',1022256924,'Rule 1804/1 (Power=1)\nAppeal of Judicial Orders\n\n As soon as possible after a Judicial Order is Appealed, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall stay it. If the Appeal is sustained,\n then the Board of Appeals shall vacate this stay as soon as\n possible.\n\n In the Appeal of a Judicial Order, the Board of Appeals shall\n consider whether the Order was properly and validly executed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404951,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1830,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','No Compulsion of Judges','No Compulsion of Judges',1022256924,'Rule 1830/1 (Power=1)\nNo Compulsion of Judges\n\n Any Order to Compel directed to a Judge, or requiring the\n performance of a duty required of a Player because that Player\n is a Judge, is invalid.\n\n Any CFJ alleging that a Judgement is incorrect, or that a Judge\n has failed to perform a judicial duty, lacks standing. Such a\n claim should instead be pursued via Appeal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404952,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1365,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions',1022256924,'Rule 1365/8 (Power=1)\nConcurring and Dissenting Opinions\n\n There shall exist a type of Application called an Application to\n Submit an Opinion. Such an Application, if effective, has the\n effect of annotating a Judgement in a given Call for Judgement.\n In order for such an Application to have effect upon submission,\n it must satisfy the following requirements:\n\n * It must clearly indicate to which CFJ it applies.\n * It must be labeled as either a Concurring Opinion or\n a Dissenting Opinion.\n * It must indicate whether the Judgement to which it applies is\n that of the Judge or that of the Appeals Court.\n * It must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which\n may include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations\n of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and Game Custom.\n * It must bear the Signatures of at least two Players.\n * It must be submitted no earlier than the submission of the\n Judgement to which it applies, and no later than one week\n after the publication by the Clerk of the Courts of that\n Judgement.\n\n An Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted by submitting\n it to the Clerk of the Courts. Such an Application, having been\n submitted and having met all the requirements for effectiveness,\n is also called an Opinion. It is also referred to as a\n Concurring Opinion or a Dissenting Opinion, as indicated in the\n Opinion.\n\n Once an Application to Submit an Opinion is submitted and takes\n effect, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the Opinion to\n all Players as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Opinion must\n be appended to the Legal Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1365, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Nov. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2750 (Chuck), Nov. 18 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404953,'rcs','00000001.00000051',911,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1022256924,'Rule 911/11 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible.\n d) Any remaining positions are filled by random selection by\n the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible\n Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n v) E is not Active.\n\n An Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (ROnald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404954,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1570,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Announcement of Appeal','Announcement of Appeal',1022256924,'Rule 1570/1 (Power=1)\nAnnouncement of Appeal\n\n As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, the Clerk of\n the Courts shall announce the subject of the Appeal.\n\n As soon as possible after a Player becomes an Appelate Judge or\n ceases to be an Appelate Judge, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n announce the change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404955,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1564,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',1022256924,'Rule 1564/11 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The following are subject to Appeal:\n\n a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.\n b) The grant or denial of a Motion.\n c) The execution of a Judicial Order.\n d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required\n judicial duty.\n\n A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:\n\n i) Three Players Appeal it.\n ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial Order binding em.\n iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a\n Crime.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404956,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1447,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Final Judgement upon Appeal','Final Judgement upon Appeal',1022256924,'Rule 1447/17 (Power=1)\nFinal Judgement upon Appeal\n\n For an Appelate Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the\n following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules may modify this,\n based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1656, Aug. 14 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 10 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4109 (Steve), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404957,'rcs','00000001.00000051',2026,'Created by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Appelate Determinations','Appelate Determinations',1022256924,'Rule 2026/0 (Power=1)\nAppelate Determinations\n\n As soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have\n submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce\n that this has happened.\n\n If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is\n overturned. The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever\n Appelate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404958,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1693,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Appeal of a Judgement','Appeal of a Judgement',1022256924,'Rule 1693/2 (Power=1)\nAppeal of a Judgement\n\n If a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of\n Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement.\n\n If a Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not\n consider the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall\n only consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been\n delivered.\n\n For an Appelate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement, a\n Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE,\n REASSIGN, or REMAND.\n\n When a Judgement is overturned:\n\n a) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REVERSE, then\n the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally,\n with the Judgement being that which a majority of the\n Appelate Judges agree on.\n\n b) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then\n the original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is\n recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ\n to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was originally\n assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as\n the original Judge for the same reason.\n\n c) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REMAND, then the\n original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the\n Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if\n it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make\n the same Judgement for the same reason.\n\n d) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be\n reassigned as described above.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3573 (Steve), Oct. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404959,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1805,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Appellate Orders','Appellate Orders',1022256924,'Rule 1805/1 (Power=1)\nAppellate Orders\n\n Appellate Orders are executed by being sent to the Clerk of the\n Courts by the Lead Judge of a Board of Appeals, but do not\n take effect until their publication by the Clerk of the Courts.\n The Lead Judge shall certify in eir submission to the Clerk of\n the Courts that the Order is executed by the concurrence of the\n majority of the Justices comprising that Board of Appeals;\n failure to do so deprives the Order of effect.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as\n soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal\n which executed it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404960,'rcs','00000001.00000051',908,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Formal Apologies','Formal Apologies',1022256924,'Rule 908/14 (Power=1)\nFormal Apologies\n\n If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges\n that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed\n to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules\n is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player\n to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is\n Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties\n by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then\n the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the\n Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement.\n\n A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200\n words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny\'s\n error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.\n\n The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include\n in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen\n by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If\n the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words\n required must appear within the Formal Apology.\n\n The failure to abide by an Order to Submit a Formal Apology is\n the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, to be reported\n by the Judge who issued the original Order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 781, ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 908, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1362, Dec. 13 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1382, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2432, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Apr. 1 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2789 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, Nov. 11 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 908, Nov. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(404961,'rcs','00000001.00000051',1370,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4303 (OscarMeyr), 17 May 2002','How to Get a Degree','How to Get a Degree',1022256924,'Rule 1370/12 (Power=1)\nHow to Get a Degree\n\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis, authored by emself, along with a statement explicitly\n indicating that the Thesis is being submitted with the intent to\n qualify for a particular Degree.\n\n If the Candidate is a Player, e may choose the first member of\n eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair; for non-players, the\n Speaker will serve as Chair. The Chair\'s Opposite is defined as\n the Player who most often voted in the opposite manner of the\n Chair in the last quarter; the Opposite becomes the second\n committee member. The Chair and eir Opposite will select, as\n soon as possible, and by mutual agreement, the third member of\n the committee.\n\n The Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may\n grant that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n Thesis produced by the Candidate is worthy of the Degree to be\n granted; and\n\n * fewer than seven years have passed since the time the Thesis\n Committee was formed.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis approved by\n its Thesis Committee.\n\n The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives\n a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 500 words. A Candidate who already holds an BN Degree receives\n a credit of 250 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History requires a Thesis of at\n least 750 words and containing a narrative covering significant\n events which have occurred in Agora within the eight weeks prior\n to the publication of the Thesis.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 750\n words.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy requires a Thesis of at\n least 1000 words, and that the candidate has also published an\n additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme\n is related to Agora or Nomic in general.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1370, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1508, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2487, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2682, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2715, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4303 (OscarMeyr), 17 May 2002'),(404962,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1976,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4316 (Craig), 28 May 2002','Mentors\' Bonus','Mentors\' Bonus',1023462231,'Rule 1976/3 (Power=1)\nMentors\' Bonus\n\n In the four weeks immediately after eir Grace Period ends, a\n Player can award a Mentor\'s Bonus to any other players e deems\n to have been most helpful to em as a new Player. E can only\n make one such award, but may split it among any number of\n players.\n\n The award is made by public announcement. Upon such an\n announcement the Bank shall incur a debt in Stems to the named\n Mentor equal to the New Player Award for Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4143 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4172 (root), 26 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4316 (Craig), 28 May 2002'),(404963,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1955,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy',1023462231,'Rule 1955/7 (Power=1)\nThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n\n (a) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor of Oligarchs and is responsible for\n conducting auctions for positions in the Oligarchy.\n\n (b) The GWotO\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of all\n Oligarchs, the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the\n next quarterly Speaker transition.\n\n (c) The GWotO shall have a budget containing:\n (1) the Oligarchy Auction Rate, which is a positive integer\n less than 5;\n (2) the Base Seating Fee, which is a number of Voting\n Entitlements between 0.1 and 0.5 inclusive.\n\n (d) The GWotO may Without 2 Objections from Oligarchs replace\n the budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces\n eir intent to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4259 (root), 22 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002'),(404964,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1936,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy',1023462231,'Rule 1936/8 (Power=2)\nAuctioning Positions in the Oligarchy\n\n (a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n GWotO shall auction off a number of Oligarchy positions\n equal to the Oligarchy Auction Rate. The GWotO shall conduct\n the Auction according to one of the Rules-defined Auction\n Procedures, with the following modifications:\n\n (1) Auction Currency: the Auction Currency is Stems.\n\n (2) Bidders: Only non-Oligarchy Active Players who are\n eligible to be Oligarchs may bid.\n\n (3) If a bidder becomes an Oligarch or becomes ineligible to\n be an Oligarch, then all eir bids in the Auction are\n cancelled.\n\n (4) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids\n are the N largest valid uncancelled bids made by\n different Players who are not Oligarchs, where N is the\n number of positions being Auctioned.\n\n (5) Defaulting: a winning bidder has one week from the time\n e is billed by the Auctioneer for eir winning bid in\n which to pay the bill. If the bill remains unpaid for\n more than one week, then the winning bidder is\n considered to have defaulted. In that case, the\n Auctioneer shall forgive the debt and penalise the\n defaulting bidder 2 Blots.\n\n (b) A winning bidder becomes an Oligarch upon paying the bill\n for eir winning bid if e is a Politician, or upon paying\n both the bill for eir winning bid and the Base Seating Fee\n if e is not a Politician.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4073 (Elysion), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002'),(404965,'rcs','00000001.00000052',2010,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002','Oligarchy Upkeep','Oligarchy Upkeep',1023462231,'Rule 2010/2 (Power=2)\nOligarchy Upkeep\n\n (a) At the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall bill each\n Oligarch who has occupied eir position in the Oligarchy for\n at least the previous 21 days as follows:\n (1) for an Oligarch who is a Politician, the Base Seating\n Fee;\n (2) for an Oligarch who is not a Politician, twice the Base\n Seating Fee.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch does not pay eir Oligarchy Upkeep within a\n week of the GWotO\'s announcement of the debt, then the GWotO\n shall forgive the Upkeep debt, and remove the Oligarch from\n the Oligarchy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4268 (Steve), 22 March 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002'),(404966,'rcs','00000001.00000052',2027,'Created by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002','Vacant Oligarchy','Vacant Oligarchy',1023462231,'Rule 2027/0 (Power=2)\nVacant Oligarchy\n\n At any time at which the number of Oligarchs is less than Quorum\n for an Ordinary Proposal, the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy may\n do either of the following:\n\n (a) conduct an Auction for positions in the Oligarchy sufficient\n (but no more than this) to bring the number of Oligarchs up\n to Quorum for an Ordinary Proposal;\n\n (b) appoint any eligible Player to be an Oligarch, with the\n Support of the appointed Player and Without 3\n Objections. The appointed Player becomes an Oligarch upon\n payment of the Base Seating Fee if e is a Politician, or\n twice the Base Seating Fee if he is not a Politician,\n provided that payment is made within a week of the\n appointment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002'),(404967,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1991,'Amended by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002','Opposite Proposals','Opposite Proposals',1023462231,'Rule 1991/1 (Power=1)\nOpposite Proposals\n\n Each time the Promotor distributes Proposals, e shall first\n select at random a single distributable Proposal, to be known as\n the Target. E may then distribute with these Proposals an\n Opposite Proposal for the Target. If e does so, e may, Without 2\n Objections, pay out 0.1 Papyri to emself.\n\n An Opposite Proposal should be clearly marked as such. It\n should be substantially the opposite, in spirit or effect, of\n its Target. An Opposite Proposal shall have the same status as\n its Target, including AI, Sanity, Urgentness, Disinterestedness,\n and Democraticity; except that, if the Target does not have an\n AI of at least 2, the Opposite Proposal shall be neither\n Democratic nor Sane.\n\n The Promotor shall be considered to be the proposer of the\n Opposite Proposal, but shall incur no penalties as a result of\n being its proposer. This Rule takes precedence over all Rules\n which would impose such penalties.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4194 (neil), 18 July 2001\nAmended by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002'),(404968,'rcs','00000001.00000052',879,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002','Quorum','Quorum',1023462231,'Rule 879/18 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs\n cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.\n\n A democratic proposal achieves quorum if:\n (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or\n (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on\n it.\n\n Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the\n number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players\n at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it\n was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\n A Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the\n entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have\n cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002'),(404969,'rcs','00000001.00000052',947,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4305 (harvel), 28 May 2002','Bonus for Repeal','Bonus for Repeal',1023462231,'Rule 947/17 (Power=1)\nBonus for Repeal\n\n (a) If there are 100 or more rules, and a proposal is adopted\n containing a provision that one or more rules be repealed,\n and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the proposal\n simplifies the ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 30\n Stems to its proposer. If the Rulekeepor decides that the\n proposal does not simplify the ruleset, e must announce this\n decision.\n\n (b) When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not\n simplify the Ruleset, the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse\n the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided\n the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of\n the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. As soon as\n possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this\n manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 30 Stems to\n emself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 947, Jul. 3 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Oct. 2 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2047, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3471 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), Nov. 6 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3848 (Chuck), Mar. 26 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4305 (harvel), 28 May 2002'),(404970,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1923,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002','Defined Unique Patent Titles','Defined Unique Patent Titles',1023462231,'Rule 1923/8 (Power=1)\nDefined Unique Patent Titles\n\n The following are Unique Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Robespierre, which shall automatically be awarded to the\n Player who called for a Revolt, it the Revolt succeeds.\n\n (b) Miscreant, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player\n who has at least ten Blots and has a greater number of\n Blots than any other Player, if there is such a Player. It\n shall automatically be revoked if either condition becomes\n false.\n\n (c) Pugachev, which shall automatically be awarded to the\n player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4027 (Elysion), Jul. 19 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4079 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4313 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002'),(404971,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1981,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4312 (root), 28 May 2002','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property','Embezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property',1023462231,'Rule 1981/3 (Power=1)\nEmbezzlement and Receiving Stolen Property\n\n (a) A transfer of Property from one entity to another entity\n which is made without being explicitly required or permitted\n by the Rules is unauthorized.\n\n (b) Unless otherwise specified, Players and Organizations are\n always permitted to transfer their own Property.\n\n (c) A Player who intentionally makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property from any entity to another entity\n commits the Class 10 Crime of Embezzlement.\n\n (d) An entity which receives Property as the result of a valid\n but unauthorized transfer incurs a debt to the Payor of that\n transfer for all Property thus received.\n\n (e) A Player who has been informed that e, or an entity of which\n e is the Prime Executor, has incurred a debt of the type\n decribed in (c) and who does not act to satisfy that debt\n within in a week of being informed of it commits the Class\n 10 Crime of Receiving Stolen Property.\n\n (f) For the the purposes of this Rule, a valid but unauthorized\n transfer is considered to have been made intentionally if\n and only if, at the time of the transfer, the Player making\n it:\n (1) knew that the transfer was valid;\n (2) knew that the transfer was unauthorized; and\n (3) realized that e was making the transfer.\n\n (g) In particular, a Player who makes a valid but unauthorized\n transfer of Property as the result of an accident or mistake\n does not commit Embezzlement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4256 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4312 (root), 28 May 2002'),(404972,'rcs','00000001.00000052',2012,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4321 (Steve), 31 May 2002','Single-Bid Auctions','Single-Bid Auctions',1023462231,'Rule 2012/1 (Power=1)\nSingle-Bid Auctions\n\n (a) There is a type of Auction called a Single-Bid Auction. The\n procedure for conducting a Single-Bid Auction is the same as\n that used in the Default Auction Procedure, with the\n following additions and exceptions:\n\n (1) Bid Inflation Factor: As part of any correct and legal\n announcement that a Single-Bid Auction is commencing,\n the Auctioneer must announce the value of the Bid\n Inflation Factor for the Auction, a real number between\n 0 and 1 inclusive.\n\n (2) Making Bids: Each Player eligible to bid in the Auction\n is permitted to make only one bid, called the initial\n Bid. Any bids made by a Player after eir initial Bid in\n the Auction are invalid. A Player who cancels eir bid is\n ineligible to make further bids in the Auction. All Bids\n must be made publically.\n\n (3) Value of Bids: at each midnight GMT during the Auction,\n the value of each valid, uncancelled Bid remaining in\n the Auction is increased by an amount equal to the Bid\n Inflation Factor multiplied by the initial Bid.\n\n (4) Final Auction Price: for the purposes of determining the\n Winner(s) of the Auction, the value of each Bid as\n calculated in (3) above is used. However, the debt\n incurred by a Winner of the Auction is equal to the Nth\n highest Winning Initial Bid, where N is the number of\n items being Auctioned, or to the Starting Bid, if there\n were fewer than N bids.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4251 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4321 (Steve), 31 May 2002'),(404973,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1470,'Mutated from Power=1 to Power=2 by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002','The Bank','The Bank',1023462231,'Rule 1470/7 (Power=2)\nThe Bank\n\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency.\n The Bank may transfer Property in its possession to other\n entities only to satisfy its debts.\n\n (b) The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank. Each\n Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of\n the Bank, and is empowered to make transfers of that\n Currency from the Bank.\n\n (c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime\n Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in\n that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the\n Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is\n required to perform.\n\n (d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any\n other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole\n or in part:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002\nMutated from Power=1 to Power=2 by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002'),(404974,'rcs','00000001.00000052',1930,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002','Scoring','Scoring',1023462231,'Rule 1930/3 (Power=1)\nScoring\n\n If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime, e may be Penalized\n a number of Points equal to the Class of the Crime times 2.\n\n If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded\n 10 Points.\n\n If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized\n 5 Points.\n\n If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded\n 15 Points.\n\n If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized\n 10 Points.\n\n If a Player submits a Proposal which is Adopted, e may be\n Awarded a number of Points equal to twice the number of\n AGAINST Votes cast on that Proposal.\n\n If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST\n a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may\n be Awarded 2 Points.\n\n If a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Awarded 5 Points\n\n If a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Penalized 5 Points.\n\n If a Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during\n the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.\n\n If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e may\n be Awarded 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4113 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002'),(404975,'rcs','00000001.00000052',2022,'Amended by Proposal 4308 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002','Sente and Gote','Sente and Gote',1023462231,'Rule 2022/1 (Power=1)\nSente and Gote\n\n On the fifteenth of each Nomic Month, the following actions\n occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the\n Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:\n\n (i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly\n connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by\n its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to\n Aether.\n\n (ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so\n transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.\n\n (iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the\n Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.\n\n (iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land\n Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land\n Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units\n of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units\n of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.\n\n (v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out:\n (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times\n the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players whose\n location has Sente;\n (b) to the owner of each Land Unit that has Sente as is\n not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau\n * 3 Stems if the Weather is Plenty;\n * 2 Stems if the Weather is Fair;\n * 1 Stem if the Weather is Foul.\n\n Sente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on\n the fifteenth of each Nomic Month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended by Proposal 4308 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002'),(404976,'rcs','00000001.00000053',594,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Proposals and Rule Changes','Proposals and Rule Changes',1024061253,'Rule 594/4 (Power=2)\nProposals and Rule Changes\n\n When a Proposal takes effect:\n (a) if the Proposer is a Member of The Cabal (as explicitly\n defined by the Rules) when the Proposal takes effect,\n the Proposal\'s Power is set equal to its Voting Index;\n (b) otherwise, its power is set equal to 1;\n and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are\n implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules.\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n[CFJ 778: It is legal for a Proposal to contain zero Rule Changes.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 594 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26 1997, substantial\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(404977,'rcs','00000001.00000053',2028,'Created by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','The Cabal','The Cabal',1024061253,'Rule 2028/0 (Power=2)\nThe Cabal\n\n Steve, Goethe, Murphy, OscarMeyr and root are each a Member of\n The Cabal. There are no other Members of The Cabal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(404978,'rcs','00000001.00000054',594,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Power and Proposals','Power and Proposals',1024062767,'Rule 594/6 (Power=3)\nPower and Proposals\n\n No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as\n described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of another\n entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be\n so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power\n greater than its own.\n\n When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to\n its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of\n the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n[CFJ 778: It is legal for a Proposal to contain zero Rule Changes.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 594 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26 1997, substantial\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4328 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(404979,'rcs','00000001.00000054',2021,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Chamber Procedure','Chamber Procedure',1024062767,'Rule 2021/1 (Power=2)\nChamber Procedure\n\n The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is initially 0.1 Voting\n Entitlements. Any Politician may change the Chamber of a\n Proposal that is not Sane to another Chamber of eir choice, by\n publicly paying this fee, provided that it is legal for the\n Proposal to be in the new Chamber. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is\n changed via this Rule:\n\n (i) The Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled;\n (ii) If the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as\n described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal Pool\n with its Distributability and other characteristics\n intact.\n\n An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a\n Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which the\n Voting Period has not ended. If this happens, the Proposal is\n Aborted as described elsewhere, but remains Distributable and\n becomes Democratic and Sane.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(404980,'rcs','00000001.00000054',2030,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Property Protection','Property Protection',1024062767,'Rule 2030/0 (Power=1)\nProperty Protection\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, a provision of an adopted\n Proposal that attemps to change the ownership of Property or\n create a debt by any means other than by changing the Ruleset\n shall be considered without effect, unless (a) the Proposal is\n Democratic; and (b) the Proposal has an Adoption Index of 2 or\n greater.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(404981,'rcs','00000001.00000054',1470,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002','The Bank','The Bank',1024062767,'Rule 1470/7 (Power=2)\nThe Bank\n\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency.\n The Bank may transfer Property in its possession to other\n entities only to satisfy its debts.\n\n (b) The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank. Each\n Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of\n the Bank, and is empowered to make transfers of that\n Currency from the Bank.\n\n (c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime\n Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in\n that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the\n Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is\n required to perform.\n\n (d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any\n other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole\n or in part:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002'),(404982,'rcs','00000001.00000054',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1024062767,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(404983,'rcs','00000001.00000055',1910,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002','Stems','Stems',1025705842,'Rule 1910/5 (Power=1)\nStems\n\n Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.\n\n Transfers of Stems are permitted only if at least one of the\n following is true:\n\n (1) either the transferor or the transferee is the Bank;\n (2) the Stems are to be transferred from a Dissolute to a player\n who has the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that\n Dissolute; or\n (3) the transferor is an Organization, and the Stems to be\n transferred had not been held continuously by the\n Organization for one week;\n (4) either the transferor or the transferee is a Money Grubbing\n Contest, and the regulations of the Contest(s) involved in\n the transfer specifically permit the transfer.\n\n All other transfers of Stems are prohibited.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002'),(404984,'rcs','00000001.00000055',2031,'Created by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002','Money Grubbing Contests','Money Grubbing Contests',1025705842,'Rule 2031/0 (Power=1)\nMoney Grubbing Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Money Grubbing Contest if its ACO\n specifically states that it is a Money Grubbing Contest. A\n Player may not be the Contestsmaster of more than one Money\n Grubbing Contest in a single Nomic month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002'),(404985,'rcs','00000001.00000056',1871,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002','Turns for All','Turns for All',1026482294,'Rule 1871/2 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Whenever a Player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e begins\n to Turn Around And Around. Players who are Turning Around And\n Around are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs.\n\n Whenever there are no Players eligible to be Trial Judge of a\n CFJ, all Players who are Turning Around And Around cease Turning\n Around And Around.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002'),(404986,'rcs','00000001.00000056',2032,'Created by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002','Errors in Judge Selection','Errors in Judge Selection',1026482294,'Rule 2032/0 (Power=1)\nErrors in Judge Selection\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a\n Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal, who:\n\n a) e believes at the time of selection to be eligible to judge\n the CFJ or Appeal; and\n b) is not eligible to judge the CFJ or Appeal at the time of\n selection solely because e is Turning Around And Around;\n\n then that selection shall stand and the selected Player shall\n become a Judge of that CFJ or Appeal, as if e had been eligible\n to judge it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002'),(404987,'rcs','00000001.00000056',1816,'Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4341 (Steve), 8 July 2002','No Double Jeopardy for Crimes','No Double Jeopardy for Crimes',1026482294,'Rule 1816/1 (Power=3)\nNo Double Jeopardy for Crimes\n\n (a) No Player may be penalized more than once for any single\n act, or failure to act, that is in violation of one or more\n Rules.\n\n (b) Where a CFJ exists whose Statement alleges that a Player has\n through action or inaction violated a Rule, and that CFJ has\n not been dismissed, any further CFJ alleging that the same\n Player has through the same action or inaction violated the\n same Rule, lacks standing and shall be dismissed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4341 (Steve), 8 July 2002\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4341 (Steve), 8 July 2002'),(404988,'rcs','00000001.00000056',1923,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4339 (Sir Toby), 8 July 2002','Defined Unique Patent Titles','Defined Unique Patent Titles',1026482294,'Rule 1923/9 (Power=1)\nDefined Unique Patent Titles\n\n The following are Unique Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Robespierre, which shall automatically be awarded to the\n Player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt succeeds.\n\n (b) Miscreant, which shall automatically be awarded to a Player\n who has at least ten Blots and has a greater number of\n Blots than any other Player, if there is such a Player. It\n shall automatically be revoked if either condition becomes\n false.\n\n (c) Pugachev, which shall automatically be awarded to the\n player who called for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4027 (Elysion), Jul. 19 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4079 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4313 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4339 (Sir Toby), 8 July 2002'),(404989,'rcs','00000001.00000056',2030,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4340 (root), 8 July 2002','Property Protection','Property Protection',1026482294,'Rule 2030/0 (Power=2)\nProperty Protection\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, a provision of an adopted\n Proposal that attemps to change the ownership of Property or\n create a debt by any means other than by changing the Ruleset\n shall be considered without effect, unless (a) the Proposal is\n Democratic; and (b) the Proposal has an Adoption Index of 2 or\n greater.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4340 (root), 8 July 2002'),(404990,'rcs','00000001.00000057',1677,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002','Currency Awards for New Players','Currency Awards for New Players',1027434652,'Rule 1677/10 (Power=1)\nCurrency Awards for New Players\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a Player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall pay out the New Player Award for\n each Bank Currency to the new Player.\n\n Whenever the Rules indicate that the Bank incurs a debt to an\n entity equal to the New Player Award, the Bank shall instead\n incur for each Bank Currency a debt to that entity equal to the\n New Player Award for that Currency.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002'),(404991,'rcs','00000001.00000057',2025,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4343 (Steve), 11 July 2002','Transfer of Jurisdiction','Transfer of Jurisdiction',1027434652,'Rule 2025/1 (Power=1)\nTransfer of Jurisdiction\n\n (a) A CFJ (the First Case) is transferred to the Judge of\n another CFJ (the Second Case), if all of the following are\n true:\n\n (1) the Second Judge is eligible to Judge the First Case (or\n is ineligible solely due to the Rule \"Turns for All\");\n (2) the First Judge announces the transfer; and\n (3) the Second Judge consents to the transfer within a week\n after it is announced.\n\n (b) When the First Case is transferred in this way:\n\n (1) the First Case is assigned to the Second Judge, and\n ceases to be assigned to the First Judge;\n (2) the First Judge becomes eligible to Judge CFJs for the\n purposes of the Rule \"Turns for All\"; and\n (3) the First CFJ becomes Linked to the Second CFJ, and to\n any CFJs to which the Second CFJ had been Linked. It\n ceases to be Linked to any other CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4343 (Steve), 11 July 2002'),(404992,'rcs','00000001.00000057',1599,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4346 (Steve), 11 July 2002','Overdue Debts','Overdue Debts',1027434652,'Rule 1599/9 (Power=1)\nOverdue Debts\n\n (a) Provided that e has not already done so, the Executor of the\n creditor of any unsatisfied debt may demand that the debtor\n satisfy that debt, by notifying the debtor of the demand.\n\n (b) The debtor shall have seven days from the time of the\n notification to satisfy the debt, except that if the debtor\n is not active at the time the demand is sent, the debtor\n shall instead have seven days from the time e becomes active\n to satisfy the debt. Time during which a debt is disputed is\n not counted for the purposes of this Rule.\n\n (c) A debt not satisfied within the time allowed by this Rule\n becomes delinquent when that time elapses. It ceases to be\n delinquent when it is satisfied.\n\n (d) Any Player who is the Prime Executor of an entity with\n respect to the satisfaction of a debt owed by that entity\n commits the Class 1 Infraction of Persistent Indebtedness\n when that debt first becomes delinquent, and commits it\n again every seven days thereafter for as long as the debt\n remains delinquent. This Infraction may be reported by the\n creditor of the delinquent debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3604 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3851 (General Chaos), Apr. 12 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4165 (Kelly), 11 June 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4346 (Steve), 11 July 2002'),(404993,'rcs','00000001.00000058',594,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4349 (root), 20 July 2002','Power and Proposals','Power and Proposals',1027434843,'Rule 594/7 (Power=3)\nPower and Proposals\n\n No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as\n described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any\n entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be\n so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power\n greater than its own.\n\n When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to\n its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of\n the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value\n requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for\n that Proposal by the Rules (if any).\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n[CFJ 778: It is legal for a Proposal to contain zero Rule Changes.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 594 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26 1997, substantial\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4328 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4349 (root), 20 July 2002'),(404994,'rcs','00000001.00000059',2027,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4354 (RedKnight), 7 August 2002','Vacant Oligarchy','Vacant Oligarchy',1029721924,'Rule 2027/1 (Power=2)\nVacant Oligarchy\n\n At any time at which the number of Oligarchs is less than Quorum\n for an Ordinary Proposal, the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy may\n do either of the following:\n\n (a) conduct an Auction for positions in the Oligarchy sufficient\n (but no more than this) to bring the number of Oligarchs up\n to Quorum for an Ordinary Proposal;\n\n (b) appoint any eligible Player to be an Oligarch, with the\n Support of the appointed Player and Without 3\n Objections. The appointed Player becomes an Oligarch upon\n payment of the Base Seating Fee if e is a Politician, or\n twice the Base Seating Fee if e is not a Politician,\n provided that payment is made within a week of the\n appointment.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4354 (RedKnight), 7 August 2002'),(404995,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1770,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Distributing Proposals','Distributing Proposals',1029721924,'Rule 1770/16 (Power=1)\nDistributing Proposals\n\n (a) The Promotor is permitted to distribute a Distributable\n Proposal at any time.\n\n (b) During each Week, the Promotor is required to distribute\n every Proposal that was Distributable at the beginning of\n that Week, unless the Proposal has since ceased to be\n Distributable.\n\n (c) If there were no Distributable Proposals at the beginning of\n the Week, then the Promotor is required publically to note\n this fact at some time during the Week.\n\n (d) Failure by the Promotor to either distribute Proposals as\n required in (b), or to make an announcement as required in\n (c), is the Class 1 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness, which\n any Player may report.\n\n (e) The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n Proposal the identity of its Proposing Entity, its Adoption\n Index, and an indication of the Proposal\'s Chamber. However,\n the failure of the Promotor to include any of these\n accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the\n distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect.\n\n (f) A Proposal is legally distributed only if it is accompanied\n by an explicit indication that it is being distributed. When\n a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal\n Pool.\n\n (g) The Promotor shall not distribute any Proposal which is not\n Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed.\n If the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was\n Distributable at the time it was distributed, e commits the\n Class 2 Crime of Illegal Abortion.\n\n (h) The Promotor aborts a Proposal by publishing an announcement\n to that effect, clearly identifying the Proposal which has\n been aborted.\n\n (i) The distribution of an Undistributable Proposal, when the\n Promotor knows that the Proposal is Undistributable, is the\n Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. The\n distribution of a text purporting to be a Proposal, when the\n Promotor knows that the text is not a Proposal, is the Class\n 5 Crime of Promotor Fraud.\n\n[In upholding the Judgement of CFJ 1089, the Board of Appeals held\n that in order for a Proposal to have been legally distributed, it is\n necessary (although perhaps not sufficient) that some text with\n demonstrably the same effects as the Proposal have been distributed.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3731 (Steve), Apr. 24 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3841 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3842 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3922 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4005 (Taral), May 8 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4034 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(404996,'rcs','00000001.00000059',2033,'Created by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Aborting a Proposal','Aborting a Proposal',1029721924,'Rule 2033/0 (Power=1)\nAborting a Proposal\n\n (a) When a Proposal is aborted:\n (1) the Voting Period for the Proposal immediately ends, if\n it has not ended already;\n (2) all Votes cast on the Proposal are cancelled, and the\n Proposal fails;\n (3) the Assessor is relieved of any duty to report on Votes\n cast on the Proposal; and\n (4) a copy of the Proposal is added to the Proposal Pool.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(404997,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1950,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002','Voting Power','Voting Power',1029721924,'Rule 1950/4 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) An Oligarch: one;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e\n possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots\n e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of:\n (a) for an Oligarch, two;\n (b) for a non-Oligarch, five.\n (2) The Bank: zero;\n (3) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Parliamentary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) One, if the entity is one of the following:\n (a) The First Estate;\n (b) The Second Estate;\n (c) The Third Estate.\n (2) Any other entity, zero.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote.\n (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast\n through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules\n for each specific entity with Voting Power on\n Parliamentary Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002'),(404998,'rcs','00000001.00000059',2020,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002','Parliamentary Votes','Parliamentary Votes',1029721924,'Rule 2020/1 (Power=1)\nParliamentary Votes\n\n For a Parliamentary Proposal, the Assessor will count as\n \"Preliminary Votes\" after the voting period has ended:\n 1. For the First Estate, communications from Acolyte Players\n or their executors that would have been legal votes if the\n Proposal had been Sane.\n 2. For the Second Estate, communications from Politician\n Players or their executors that would have been legal\n votes if the Proposal had been Sane.\n 3. For the Third Estate, communications from Scribe Players\n or their executors that would have been legal votes if the\n Proposal had been Sane.\n\n For each Estate, if the preliminary votes of Players in that\n Estate (both voting index and quorum) would have passed the\n Proposal were they deemed to be Democratic votes on a Sane\n Proposal, then that Estate shall be deemed to have cast 1 vote\n FOR the Proposal; otherwise, that Estate shall be deemed to have\n cast 1 vote AGAINST the Proposal. The timing of all votes cast\n on Parliamentary Proposals shall be deemed to be an instant\n before the end of the Voting Period. There are no other specific\n mechanisms for casting votes on Parliamentary Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002'),(404999,'rcs','00000001.00000059',2021,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Chamber Procedure','Chamber Procedure',1029721924,'Rule 2021/2 (Power=2)\nChamber Procedure\n\n (a) The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is initially 0.1 Voting\n Entitlements. Any Politician may change the Chamber of a\n Proposal that is not Sane to another Chamber of eir choice,\n by publically paying this Fee, provided that it is legal for\n the Proposal to be in the new Chamber.\n\n (b) When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule:\n (1) the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled; and\n (2) if the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted\n as described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal\n Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics\n intact.\n\n (c) An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a\n Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which\n the Voting Period has not ended. If the Speaker Sanitises a\n Proposal, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere;\n the Proposal remains Distributable, but becomes Democratic\n and Sane.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(405000,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1596,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Debt','Debt',1029721924,'Rule 1596/9 (Power=1)\nDebt\n\n (a) A \"debt\" is an obligation arising under the Rules for one\n entity (the \"debtor\") to make a transfer of one or more\n Properties to some other entity (the \"creditor\").\n\n (b) No debt shall be enforceable unless a notice sufficient to\n inform the debtor of the debt has been sent to the debtor.\n If a Rule requires that a public notice of a debt be posted,\n the debt is not enforceable until and unless that notice is\n posted.\n\n (c) A debt is satisfied when the debtor has transferred (or is\n deemed to have transferred) all the Properties named to the\n creditor (either as a single transfer or as the aggregate of\n multiple transfers).\n\n (d) A debt is forgiven when the creditor of a debt sends a\n notice to the debtor that e is forgiving the\n debt. Forgiveness may be for the entire debt or for any part\n thereof. The effect of forgiving a debt is to relieve the\n debtor of the obligation arising from that part of the debt\n which has been forgiven to transfer Property to the\n creditor.\n\n (e) If two entities are each others\' debtor, and all or part of\n their debts to each other are for the same quantity (equal\n portions) of the same fungible Property, then a public\n announcement of this mutual debt by either entity will have\n the effect of satisfying the equal portions of the debts for\n both debtors as in (c) above.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2493, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2626, Jun. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4037 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4259 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(405001,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1887,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure','Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure',1029721924,'Rule 1887/17 (Power=1)\nAuctions and the Default Auction Procedure\n\n When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not\n specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction\n Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,\n the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.\n\n The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:\n\n (a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the\n Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and\n announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require\n (or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify\n which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or\n may) initiate it.\n\n (b) Bidders: every Player not on Hold may bid in an Auction.\n Activity is measured at the time a Player sends eir bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction\n cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first\n announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player\n authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must\n contain:\n (1) the identity of the Auctioneer;\n (2) the Auction Currency;\n (3) the number of items being Auctioned; and\n (4) the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required\n elements is missing from the announcement initiating the\n Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the\n Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,\n then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to\n have been legal and correct for the purposes of the\n Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to\n have occurred.\n\n (g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value\n of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is\n equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying\n the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of\n eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during\n the Auction. A bid is only valid if it satisfies the\n following conditions:\n (1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before\n its end;\n (2) the amount of the bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the\n Auction Currency; and\n (3) the amount of the bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (i) Cancelling bids: a bidder may cancel eir bid while the\n Auction is in progress by publically identifying the bid to\n be cancelled.\n\n (j) End of Auction: the Auction ends if any of the following\n occur:\n (1) one week has passed from the start of the Auction, and\n no bids have been made; or\n (2) a bid has been made in the Auction, and 72 hours have\n passed without there being a change in the N highest\n bids in the Auction; or\n (3) 14 days have passed since the Auction began.\n\n (k) Winning bids: when the Auction ends, the winning bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid bids in the Auction (or all\n valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids. If there were no bids in the Auction, then\n the Auction has no winner.\n\n (l) Final Auction Price: the Final Auction Price is either:\n (1) the amount of the Nth highest bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled bids in the auction; or\n (2) the Starting Bid, if there were greater than zero but\n fewer than N valid uncancelled bids.\n\n (m) Billing for winning bids: as soon as possible after the end\n of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning\n bids and issue to each winning bidder a separate bill for\n each of eir winning bids.\n\n (n) Defaulting: a winning bidder has a week from the time e is\n billed by the Auctioneer for a winning bid e made to satisfy\n the debt arising from that bid. If e does not do so, e\n commits the Class 2 Infraction of Defaulting (reportable by\n the Auctioneer), and thereafter loses eir right to purchase\n the Auctioned item by paying the debt arising from that\n bid. As soon as possible after a winning bidder defaults on\n a bid, the Auctioneer shall Order the owner of the items\n being Auctioned (normally the Bank) to forgive the\n unsatisfied debt arising from the bid.\n\n (o) Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the\n winning bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(405002,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1983,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Vickrey Auctions','Vickrey Auctions',1029721924,'Rule 1983/3 (Power=1)\nVickrey Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Bidders: any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer\n may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.\n\n (b) Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then eir bids must be made\n publically. Otherwise, bidders may bid either publically, or\n privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (c) End of Auction: the Auction shall end one week after it\n begins.\n\n (d) The Final Auction Price is either:\n (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid\n bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled bids in\n the Auction; or\n (2) the Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid\n uncancelled bids.\n For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of\n items being Auctioned.\n\n The Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a\n Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in\n progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much\n about their bidding as they wish.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(405003,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1984,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Raffles','Raffles',1029721924,'Rule 1984/5 (Power=1)\nRaffles\n\n There is a type of Auction called a Raffle. The Auction\n Procedure for a Raffle is the same as the Default Auction\n Procedure, with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is known as the Riff-Raff.\n\n (b) Start of Raffle: the Raffle begins when the first\n announcement that a Raffle has begun is made by a Player\n authorized to initiate the Raffle. The announcement must\n contain:\n (1) the identity of the Riff-Raff;\n (2) the Raffle Currency;\n (3) the number of items, N, being Raffled; and\n (4) the Ticket Price, a multiple of the MUQ of the Raffle\n Currency.\n\n (c) Ticket Price: all tickets shall have the same Ticket Price.\n If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal\n to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.\n\n (d) Buying tickets: an entrant buys a ticket by paying a Fee\n equal to the Ticket Price to the Bank, provided that the\n purchase is not made before the start of the Auction, or\n after its end. Each entrant may buy as many tickets as e\n likes during the Auction.\n\n (e) End of Raffle: the Raffle ends if any of the following\n occur:\n (1) one week has passed from the start of the Raffle, and no\n tickets have been purchased; or\n (2) a ticket has been purchased in the Raffle, and 72 hours\n have passed without another ticket being purchased in\n the\n Raffle;\n (3) 14 days have passed since the Raffle began.\n\n (f) Winning tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall\n randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets to be winning\n tickets. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and\n multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same entrant may win.\n If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all\n valid Raffle tickets are winning tickets.\n\n (g) Announcing winners: as soon as possible after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets.\n Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each\n winning entrant for each of eir winning tickets.\n\n (h) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: within a week after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price\n in the Raffle Currency if:\n (1) the Raffle had at least three separate winning entrants,\n not including the Riff-Raff; and\n (2) the Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4177 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4265 (Steve), 17 March 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(405004,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1479,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4353 (steve), 7 August 2002','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"',1029721924,'Rule 1479/4 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"\n\n (a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to\n that entity for those Properties, and the named Player\n shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so,\n then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those\n Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one\n or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the\n Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\nCFJ 1301 (Judged TRUE, 13 June 2001): \"Rule 1479 should be interpreted\n such that an Order, which requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, and which is valid and proper under the\n Rules, causes the Bank to incur one or more debts to the named\n entity.\"\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2476, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4353 (steve), 7 August 2002'),(405005,'rcs','00000001.00000059',1712,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1029721924,'Rule 1712/16 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Nomic Month, less\n the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to other\n entities during that same Nomic Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002'),(405006,'rcs','00000001.00000060',1940,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4361 (Steve), 16 August 2002','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',1029859329,'Rule 1940/5 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n (a) The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic\n compensations. At the beginning of each month, each\n periodic compensation required to be paid out shall be paid\n out by the Officer required to do so.\n\n (b) The Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the\n Speaker\'s Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are\n periodic compensations.\n\n (c) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to each\n Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the\n designated Salary for each Office that Player held for at\n least 16 days of the previous month.\n\n (d) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity\n to the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was\n both the Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of\n the previous month.\n\n (e) The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a\n Player if that Player was Speaker for at least 16 days of\n the previous month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4361 (Steve), 16 August 2002'),(405007,'rcs','00000001.00000060',1835,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4363 (OscarMeyr), 16 August 2002','Standing Down','Standing Down',1029859329,'Rule 1835/3 (Power=1)\nStanding Down\n\n During the Voting Period of an Election, any Candidate for that\n Election may stand down, by posting a public message to that\n effect. The player is then no longer to be considered a\n Candidate for that Election. Any further votes cast in eir\n favour are invalid, and e cannot win the Election.\n\n Any votes cast for a Player who stands down are cancelled, and\n any Player who cast such a vote is considered to have declared\n eir Presence in that Election. Additionally, any Player who\n cast such a vote may vote again, unless e has already cast\n another vote which remains uncancelled, and this Rule takes\n precedence over any Rule which would prevent such a vote.\n\n If, at any time during the Voting Period of an Election, there\n remains only a single Candidate, the Voting Period ends\n immediately, with the sole remaining Candidate as the winner of\n that Election. For the purposes of Rules on awarding Points,\n that Election shall not be considered a contested Election.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3715 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4035 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4363 (OscarMeyr), 16 August 2002'),(405008,'rcs','00000001.00000060',1983,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4358 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002','Vickrey Auctions','Vickrey Auctions',1029859329,'Rule 1983/4 (Power=1)\nVickrey Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Bidders: any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer\n may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.\n\n (b) Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then eir bids must be made\n publically. Otherwise, bidders may bid either publically, or\n privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (d) End of Auction: the Auction shall end one week after it\n begins.\n\n (e) The Final Auction Price is either:\n (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid\n bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled bids in\n the Auction; or\n (2) the Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid\n uncancelled bids.\n For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of\n items being Auctioned.\n\n The Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a\n Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in\n progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much\n about their bidding as they wish.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4358 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002'),(405009,'rcs','00000001.00000060',1479,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4364 (Steve), 16 August 2002','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"',1029859329,'Rule 1479/5 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"\n\n (a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to\n that entity for those Properties, and the named Player\n shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so,\n then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those\n Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one\n or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the\n Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt.\n\nCFJ 1301 (Judged TRUE, 13 June 2001): \"Rule 1479 should be interpreted\n such that an Order, which requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, and which is valid and proper under the\n Rules, causes the Bank to incur one or more debts to the named\n entity.\"\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2476, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4353 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4364 (Steve), 16 August 2002'),(405010,'rcs','00000001.00000060',1946,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4359 (Steve), 16 August 2002','Distribution of Voting Entitlements','Distribution of Voting Entitlements',1029859329,'Rule 1946/9 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Voting Entitlements\n\n (a) The Ideal Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (IVECL) is\n equal to the number of registered Players multiplied by the\n Voting Entitlements per Player as set in the Assessor\'s\n Budget.\n\n (b) The Actual Voting Entitlement Circulation Level (AVECL) is\n the total number of Voting Entitlements owned by entities\n other than the Bank, augmented by the total number of Voting\n Entitlements owned by the Bank which either:\n (1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in prior Voting\n Entitlement Auctions that have not yet concluded; or\n (2) have been auctioned in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions\n that have concluded, but where the debts arising from\n Winning Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon;\n or\n (3) have been Auctioned in prior Voting Entitlement Auctions\n that have concluded, and the debts arising from the\n Winning Bids have been paid, but the Voting Entitlements\n have not been transferred to the Winning Bidders.\n\n (c) The Voting Entitlement Surplus is the difference between the\n IVECL and the AVECL; if the AVECL is greater than the IVECL,\n the Voting Entitlement Surplus is zero.\n\n (d) If the Voting Entitlement Surplus is positive at the\n beginning of the month, the Assessor shall as soon as\n possible auction off the surplus Voting Entitlements. The\n items to be auctioned are lots of 0.1 VEs; the number of\n items is equal to the Voting Entitlement Surplus multiplied\n by 10, rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer\n shall be the Assessor, and the Auction shall be conducted in\n Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4058 (Peekee), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4117 (Blob), Mar. 6 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4247 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4359 (Steve), 16 August 2002'),(405011,'rcs','00000001.00000060',1990,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002','Points Contests','Points Contests',1029859329,'Rule 1990/1 (Power=1)\nPoints Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states\n that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the\n Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Nomic\n month.\n\n PWIN is the number of points required for a Player to achieve a\n win condition, as defined elsewhere in the Rules. PPP (Points\n Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.\n\n Once during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a\n Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of\n Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s\n Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be\n awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants\n may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing.\n The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained\n in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.\n\n The total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each\n such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of\n Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the\n 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are\n listed the Notice is invalid.\n\n The total number of Points that a single Player may receive from\n all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN\n divided by five. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a\n Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is\n invalid for that Player only.\n\n The posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event\n Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4191 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002'),(405012,'rcs','00000001.00000060',2031,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002','Money Grubbing Contests','Money Grubbing Contests',1029859329,'Rule 2031/1 (Power=1)\nMoney Grubbing Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Money Grubbing Contest if its ACO\n specifically states that it is a Money Grubbing Contest. A\n Player may not be the Contestmaster of more than one Money\n Grubbing Contest in a single Nomic month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002'),(405013,'rcs','00000001.00000061',1727,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1030633734,'Rule 1727/11 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June\n 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by First\n Speaker Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think\n we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules\n are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was\n played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its official\n name of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the\n hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent\n advice of Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as close as practical to Agora\'s\n Birthday (June 30 at 00:04:30 GMT+1200), the Payroll Clerk\n shall transfer 10 Stems from the Bank to each Player;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Payroll Clerk shall transfer\n 5 Stems from the Bank to each Player who, during Agora\'s\n Birthday, publicly recognizes Agora\'s Birthday; but no Player\n shall receive more than one such transfer during each year\'s\n Birthday Celebration.\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary may select up to three\n Contests, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have as their\n purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and\n which Contests, in the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of\n recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to the\n Contestmaster of each such Contest 20 Stems;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on\n Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not\n publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of\n Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the\n Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge,\n Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit\n an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do\n take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this\n Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405014,'rcs','00000001.00000061',1664,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002','Rebellion','Rebellion',1030633734,'Rule 1664/20 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall pay out 8 Stems to each Rebellious\n player\n - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the\n Oligarchy\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - The Registrar shall levy a 75% Indulgence tax. For this\n levy, the Bearor of the Patent Title \"Robespierre\" is\n tax-exempt.\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status, Oligarchy membership, and Indulgence holdings of players\n at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405015,'rcs','00000001.00000061',1893,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002','The Treasuror\'s Budget','The Treasuror\'s Budget',1030633734,'Rule 1893/12 (Power=1)\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall contain the Basic Officer Salary\n (BOS), an amount between 0 and 40 Stems inclusive.\n Additionally, the Budget shall contain the values all of the\n following compensations:\n\n (i) the Minimum Income;\n (ii) the Judicial Salary;\n (iii) the Winner\'s Stipend;\n (iv) the Distributor\'s Gratuity;\n (v) the Speaker\'s Gratuity; and\n (vi) for each wage-earning Office, the Salary of that Office.\n\n A compensation shall be not less than 0 nor more than 4, and\n must be an integral multiple of 0.1. The arithmetic mean of all\n compensations shall be no greater than 2.\n\n Whenever the Rules indicate that one of the above compensations\n is to be paid out, the amount to be paid out shall be the\n product of the value of the compensation and the value of the\n BOS (as set in the latest Budget).\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain a schedule that, for\n each Bank Currency, shall indicate the amount of the New Player\n Award for that Currency. The amount of the New Player Award for\n a Bank Currency shall not be less than the Minimum Unit Quantity\n of that Currency.\n\n While holding the Office as Electee, the Treasuror may amend eir\n Budget, With Support.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3924 (Wes), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3944 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3955 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3982 (Sherlock), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3996 (lee), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405016,'rcs','00000001.00000061',2034,'Created by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002','Votes are Protected','Votes are Protected',1030633734,'Rule 2034/0 (Power=3)\nVotes are Protected\n\n Any Proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change an\n entity\'s vote on an Issue for which the voting period has begun\n but for which no official voting report has been published at\n the time of the Proposal\'s adoption shall be wholly without\n effect, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Once an official voting report has been published for that\n Issue, no votes on that Issue may be changed or cancelled, and\n the outcome of the Issue may not be changed in any way, any Rule\n to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this Rule shall be\n construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting\n the results of voting on Issues.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405017,'rcs','00000001.00000061',947,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002','Bonus for Repeal','Bonus for Repeal',1030633734,'Rule 947/18 (Power=1)\nBonus for Repeal\n\n (a) If there are 100 or more rules, and a proposal is adopted\n containing a provision that one or more rules be repealed,\n and if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the proposal\n simplifies the ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall pay out 6\n Stems to its proposer. If the Rulekeepor decides that the\n proposal does not simplify the ruleset, e must announce this\n decision.\n\n (b) When the Rulekeepor decides that such a Proposal does not\n simplify the Ruleset, the Proposal\'s Proposer may reverse\n the Rulekeepor\'s decision Without Three Objections, provided\n the procedure for doing so is initiated within one week of\n the announcement of the Rulekeepor\'s decision. As soon as\n possible after the Rulekeepor\'s decision is reversed in this\n manner, the Proposal\'s Proposer shall pay out 6 Stems to\n emself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 947, Jul. 3 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Oct. 2 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2047, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3471 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), Nov. 6 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3848 (Chuck), Mar. 26 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4305 (harvel), 28 May 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405018,'rcs','00000001.00000061',1678,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4365 (Steve), 23 August 2002','Encourage Proposals by New Players','Encourage Proposals by New Players',1030633734,'Rule 1678/6 (Power=1)\nEncourage Proposals by New Players\n\n If a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was submitted by a\n Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor\n shall pay out to that Player an award of one Papyrus if the\n Proposal was Interested, or 0.2 Papyri if the Proposal was\n Disinterested.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2758 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4365 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405019,'rcs','00000001.00000061',1930,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4365 (Steve), 23 August 2002','Scoring','Scoring',1030633734,'Rule 1930/4 (Power=1)\nScoring\n\n (a) If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime, e may be Penalized a\n number of Points equal to the Class of the Crime times 2.\n\n (b) If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded 10\n Points.\n\n (c) If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized 5\n Points.\n\n (d) If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.\n\n (e) If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded\n 15 Points.\n\n (f) If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized\n 10 Points.\n\n (g) If a Player submits a Disinterested Proposal which is\n Adopted, e may be Awarded 1 Point, plus 1 Point for each\n vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.\n\n (h) If a Player submits an Interested Proposal which is Adopted,\n e may be Awarded 4 Points, plus 1 Point for each vote that\n was cast AGAINST the Proposal.\n\n (i) If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST\n a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may\n be Awarded 2 Points.\n\n (j) If a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Awarded 5 Points\n\n (k) If a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Penalized 5 Points.\n\n (l) If a Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during\n the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.\n\n (m) If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e\n may be Awarded 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4113 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4365 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405020,'rcs','00000001.00000061',2022,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002','Sente and Gote','Sente and Gote',1030633734,'Rule 2022/2 (Power=1)\nSente and Gote\n\n On the fifteenth of each Nomic Month, the following actions\n occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the\n Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:\n\n (i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly\n connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by\n its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to\n Aether.\n\n (ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so\n transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.\n\n (iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the\n Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.\n\n (iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land\n Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land\n Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units\n of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units\n of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.\n\n (v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out:\n (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times\n the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players whose\n location has Sente;\n (b) to the owner of any Land Unit that has Sente and is\n not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau:\n * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n\n Sente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on\n the fifteenth of each Nomic Month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4308 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002'),(405021,'rcs','00000001.00000062',1079,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4368 (Steve), 29 August 2002','Definition of \"Random\"','Definition of \"Random\"',1030634038,'Rule 1079/3 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Random\"\n\n (a) When a Rule requires a random choice to be made, then the\n choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution\n among the possible outcomes the Rules provide for making\n that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability\n distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall\n be used.\n\n (b) Where the Rules do not indicate who is required to make a\n particular random choice, it shall be made by the Speaker.\n\n (c) When making a random choice as required by the Rules, a\n Player may rely on any physical or computational process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.\n\n (d) For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid or\n coin that is not specially weighted has a probability\n distribution among the possible outcomes that is reasonably\n close to uniform.\n\n (e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of\n whether a method\'s probability distribution among the\n possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by\n the Rules.\n\n[CFJ 790 contains a detailed discussion on what does and does not\n qualify as a random choice.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1079, ca. Oct. 11 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1648, Aug. 6 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2806, Feb. 8 1997, substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4368 (Steve), 29 August 2002'),(405022,'rcs','00000001.00000062',1812,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4369 (RedKnight), 29 August 2002','Notices of Infraction','Notices of Infraction',1030634038,'Rule 1812/5 (Power=1)\nNotices of Infraction\n\n If an entity (hereafter the Defendant) commits an Infraction,\n then any Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission\n of that Infraction may announce a Notice of Infraction. This\n Notice shall explicitly specify the following:\n\n a) The Infraction that has been committed.\n b) The identity of the Defendant.\n c) The Rule(s) defining that action or inaction as an\n Infraction.\n d) The action or inaction by which the Defendant committed the\n Infraction.\n e) Whatever Orders are sufficient to impose the penalty for\n the Infraction.\n\n If a Claim of Error alleging that the Defendant did not commit\n the Infraction is admitted, then the Player who announced the\n Notice of Infraction shall vacate all Orders that e executed to\n impose the penalty for the Infraction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3934 (Wes), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4369 (RedKnight), 29 August 2002'),(405023,'rcs','00000001.00000063',1727,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1032533600,'Rule 1727/12 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June\n 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by First\n Speaker Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think\n we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules\n are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was\n played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its official\n name of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the\n hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent\n advice of Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as soon as possible after the\n beginning of Agora\'s Birthday, the Registrar shall pay out 10\n Stems to each Player;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as soon as possible after the end\n of Agora\'s Birthday, the Speaker shall pay out 5 Stems to each\n Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday, publicly recognized Agora\'s\n Birthday;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Notary may select up to three\n Contests, in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which have as their\n purpose encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday; and\n which Contests, in the Notary\'s estimation, are worthy of\n recognition for this effort; and shall pay out to the\n Contestmaster of each such Contest 20 Stems;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on\n Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not\n publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of\n Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the\n Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge,\n Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit\n an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do\n take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this\n Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002'),(405024,'rcs','00000001.00000063',1936,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4371 (Steve), 6 September 2002','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy','Auctioning Positions in the Oligarchy',1032533600,'Rule 1936/9 (Power=2)\nAuctioning Positions in the Oligarchy\n\n (a) As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n GWotO shall auction off a number of Oligarchy positions\n equal to the Oligarchy Auction Rate. The GWotO shall conduct\n the Auction according to one of the Rules-defined Auction\n Procedures, with the following modifications:\n\n (1) Auction Currency: the Auction Currency is Stems.\n\n (2) Bidders: Only non-Oligarchy Active Players who are\n eligible to be Oligarchs may bid.\n\n (3) If a bidder becomes an Oligarch or becomes ineligible to\n be an Oligarch, then all eir bids in the Auction are\n cancelled.\n\n (4) Winning bids: when the Auctions ends, the winning bids\n are the N largest valid uncancelled bids made by\n different Players who are not Oligarchs, where N is the\n number of positions being Auctioned.\n\n (b) A winning bidder becomes an Oligarch upon paying the bill\n for eir winning bid if e is a Politician, or upon paying\n both the bill for eir winning bid and the Base Seating Fee\n if e is not a Politician.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4073 (Elysion), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4371 (Steve), 6 September 2002'),(405025,'rcs','00000001.00000063',2010,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4371 (Steve), 6 September 2002','Oligarchy Upkeep','Oligarchy Upkeep',1032533600,'Rule 2010/3 (Power=2)\nOligarchy Upkeep\n\n (a) At the beginning of each month, the GWotO shall bill each\n Oligarch who has occupied eir position in the Oligarchy for\n at least the previous 21 days as follows:\n (1) for an Oligarch who is a Politician, the Base Seating\n Fee;\n (2) for an Oligarch who is not a Politician, twice the Base\n Seating Fee.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch does not pay eir Oligarchy Upkeep within a\n week of the GWotO\'s announcement of the debt, then the GWotO\n shall remove the Oligarch from the Oligarchy, and Order the\n Bank to forgive the Upkeep debt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4268 (Steve), 22 March 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4371 (Steve), 6 September 2002'),(405026,'rcs','00000001.00000063',1950,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002','Voting Power','Voting Power',1032533600,'Rule 1950/5 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) An Oligarch: one;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Player: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements e\n possesses rounded down, minus one for every five Blots\n e has, with a minimum of zero and a maximum of:\n (a) for an Oligarch, two;\n (b) for a non-Oligarch, five.\n (2) The Bank: zero;\n (3) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Parliamentary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) One, if the entity is one of the following:\n (a) The First Estate;\n (b) The Second Estate;\n (c) The Third Estate.\n (2) Any other entity, zero.\n\n (d) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (e) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote.\n (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast\n through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules\n for each specific entity with Voting Power on\n Parliamentary Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002'),(405027,'rcs','00000001.00000063',1983,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4372 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002','Vickrey Auctions','Vickrey Auctions',1032533600,'Rule 1983/5 (Power=1)\nVickrey Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Vickrey Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Bidders: any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer\n may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.\n\n (b) Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then eir bids must be made\n publically. Otherwise, bidders may bid either publically, or\n privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (c) Canceling Bids: if a Bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then eir Bids must be canceled publically.\n Otherwise, bidders may cancel bids either publically, or\n privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (d) End of Auction: the Auction shall end one week after it\n begins.\n\n (e) The Final Auction Price is either:\n (1) The amount of the largest nonwinning uncancelled valid\n bid, if there were more than N valid uncancelled bids in\n the Auction; or\n (2) the Starting Bid, if there were N or fewer valid\n uncancelled bids.\n For the purpose of this Rule, N is equal to the number of\n items being Auctioned.\n\n The Auctioneer and eir Executor must treat all bids made in a\n Vickrey Auction as secret while the Auction is in\n progress. Other players, however, are free to reveal as much\n about their bidding as they wish.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4358 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4372 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002'),(405028,'rcs','00000001.00000063',1962,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4375 (RedKnight), 6 September 2002','Immaculate Players','Immaculate Players',1032533600,'Rule 1962/3 (Power=1)\nImmaculate Players\n\n An Immaculate Player is a Player whose Stain is zero.\n\n Not being Immaculate is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n Being the only Active Immaculate Player is a Win Condition. Upon\n the report of such a Win, the Herald shall expunge N Blots per\n Player, where N is the Stain of the Active Player(s) with the\n lowest non-zero Stain.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4375 (RedKnight), 6 September 2002'),(405029,'rcs','00000001.00000063',2003,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002','Moving in Arcadia','Moving in Arcadia',1032533600,'Rule 2003/6 (Power=1)\nMoving in Arcadia\n\n Every week, each Player may expend up to 10 Movement Units, and\n an Organization may expend up to 5 Movement Units, to move about\n in the Land of Arcadia. Movement Units are not transferrable,\n and do not persist from one week to the next.\n\n A player makes a move by notifying the Mapkeepor of the\n specifics of the move. So long as e does not spend more than eir\n allotted number of Movement Units, a Player may move as many\n times as e wishes in a single week.\n\n When a move specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type\n chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous\n alternating Land Type. The next Land Type will be the one\n non-Aether Land Type that is defined next in the Rules, after\n the previous Land Type. If the previous Land Type is the last\n Land Type defined in the Rules, or if no alternating Land Type\n has ever been picked before, the next Land Type is the first\n non-Aether Land Type defined in the Rules. As soon as possible\n after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of a move that specifies\n an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Type was used for that move.\n\n Entities may expend:\n\n * 2 Movement Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent\n Unit if their Land Types are the same and the destination is\n not Aether;\n\n * 5 Movement Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent\n Unit if their Land Types differ and the destination is not\n Aether;\n\n * 5 Movement Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e\n owns to any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is\n located at that Land Unit;\n\n * 5 Movement Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit\n that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of\n type Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an\n alternating Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random\n determination. This movement has no effect if there are no\n qualifying Land Units. As soon as possible after a Player\n notifies the Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must\n announce which Land Unit, if any, is changed by this\n movement. The change occurs at the time of the first legal\n announcement from the Mapkeepor declaring which Land Unit\'s\n Land Type has changed.\n\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s\n current location to any Land Type of eir choice other than\n Aether, if and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that\n is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002'),(405030,'rcs','00000001.00000064',1431,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4380 (Steve), 11 September 2002','Claims of Error','Claims of Error',1032534455,'Rule 1431/16 (Power=1)\nClaims of Error\n\n A Claim of Error is a public message claiming that a specific\n public communication misrepresents the actual Game State, and\n documenting the nature of the error. The person who sent the\n original communication is hereafter known as the Journalist, and\n the portion of the communication claimed to be in error is\n hereafter known as the Yellow Document.\n\n A Response to a Claim of Error is a public message from the\n Journalist that either admits or denies the claim. An admission\n is not valid until the Journalist posts a corrected version of\n the Yellow Document.\n\n If the Journalist was required by the Rules to publish the\n information in the Yellow Document, then e must publish a\n Response as soon as possible, unless one of the following holds:\n\n a) E has already published a correction.\n b) A previous Claim was made concerning the same error.\n c) The Claim was posted more than three weeks after the Yellow\n Document.\n d) The Claim is in dispute. If the Claim ceases to be in\n dispute, then the Journalist must publish a Response as\n soon as possible after it ceases to be in dispute.\n\n If the Journalist was not required by the Rules to publish the\n information in the Yellow Document, then e is encouraged (but\n not required) to publish a Response in a timely fashion.\n\n A Player who incorrectly denies a Claim commits the Class 1\n Crime of Implausible Deniability. However, if e admits the\n Claim within three days after the incorrect denial, then e shall\n not be convicted of this Crime.\n\n[CFJ 919: A PF message correcting an earlier PF message by the\n same player constitutes both a COE and the Response.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1431 (Kelly), Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1491, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1643, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2424, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2492, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2561, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3456 (Murphy), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3528 (Steve), Jul. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4047 (Taral), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4380 (Steve), 11 September 2002'),(405031,'rcs','00000001.00000064',1893,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4383 (Sir Toby), 11 September 2002','The Treasuror\'s Budget','The Treasuror\'s Budget',1032534455,'Rule 1893/12 (Power=1)\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall contain the Basic Officer Salary\n (BOS), an amount between 0 and 40 Stems inclusive.\n Additionally, the Budget shall contain the values all of the\n following compensations:\n\n (i) the Minimum Income;\n (ii) the Judicial Salary;\n (iii) the Winner\'s Stipend;\n (iv) the Distributor\'s Gratuity;\n (v) the Speaker\'s Gratuity; and\n (vi) for each wage-earning Office, the Salary of that Office.\n\n A compensation shall be not less than 0 nor more than 4, and\n must be an integral multiple of 0.1. The arithmetic mean of all\n compensations shall be no greater than 2.\n\n Whenever the Rules indicate that one of the above compensations\n is to be paid out, the amount to be paid out shall be the\n product of the value of the compensation and the value of the\n BOS (as set in the latest Budget).\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain a schedule that, for\n each Bank Currency, shall indicate the amount of the New Player\n Award for that Currency. The amount of the New Player Award for\n a Bank Currency shall not be less than the Minimum Unit Quantity\n of that Currency.\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain the Foul Weather\n Factor and the Weather Intensity Factor. Both are numbers\n between 0 and 10 inclusive that are evenly divisible by 0.1.\n\n While holding the Office as Electee, the Treasuror may amend eir\n Budget, With Support.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3924 (Wes), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3944 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3955 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3982 (Sherlock), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3996 (lee), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4383 (Sir Toby), 11 September 2002'),(405032,'rcs','00000001.00000064',2011,'Amended by Proposal 4383 (Sir Toby), 11 September 2002','Stems Weather','Stems Weather',1032534455,'Rule 2011/1 (Power=1)\nStems Weather\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n Treasuror shall randomly Determine the Weather for the month.\n The Weather can be one of either Foul, Fair, or Plenty, and\n shall be determined as follows:\n\n - Let FOUL be the number of Stems owned by the Bank,\n multiplied by the Foul Weather Factor as set in the\n Treasuror\'s Budget, and then rounded up to the nearest\n integer.\n - Let PLENTY be the number of Stems owned by all Entities,\n excluding the Bank.\n - Let SAME and FAIR both be the sum of FOUL and PLENTY,\n divided by 4, rounding up to the nearest integer.\n - Let TOTAL by the sum of FOUL, PLENTY, SAME, and FAIR.\n - The weather shall be determined using the following\n probabilities:\n (FOUL / TOTAL) Foul.\n (FAIR / TOTAL) Fair.\n (PLENTY / TOTAL) Plenty.\n (SAME / TOTAL) Same as the previous month.\n\n When the Treasuror posts eir Determination of the Weather for a\n month, the following events shall occur in the listed sequence\n immediately after the Weather is Determined:\n\n (a) A number of Stems in the Bank\'s possession, equal to\n the number of Players in the game multiplied by the\n Minimum Income, multiplied by the Weather Intensity\n Factor as set in the Treasuror\'s Budget, and then\n rounded up to the nearest integer, shall be\n Destroyed. If this value is greater than the number of\n Stems in the Possession of the Bank, all the Stems in\n the Possession of the Bank shall be Destroyed instead.\n (b) A number of Stems shall be Created in the Bank\'s\n Possession, equal to the number Destroyed in (a) above\n multiplied by:\n 0.50 if the Weather is Foul;\n 1.00 if the Weather is Fair;\n 1.50 if the Weather is Plenty.\n\n The Treasuror shall announce the number of Stems Created and\n Destroyed by this Rule in the message in which e announces the\n Weather.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001\nAmended by Proposal 4383 (Sir Toby), 11 September 2002'),(405033,'rcs','00000001.00000064',112,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4377 (Murphy), 11 September 2002','Ways to Win and Preclusions Thereof','Ways to Win and Preclusions Thereof',1032534455,'Rule 112/4 (Power=3)\nWays to Win and Preclusions Thereof\n\n A Player is eligible to Win the Game while e meets at least one\n Win Condition, and does not meet any Win-Preventing Conditions.\n\n Any Player may publish a Notice of Victory that lists all\n Players eligible to Win the Game, and (for each listed Player)\n identifies at least one Win Condition met by that Player. If\n this information is accurate, then the listed Players Win the\n Game.\n\n This is the only way to Win the Game. If a Player would\n otherwise Win the Game due to other Rules, then e instead meets\n a Win Condition for one week (and may Win the Game as described\n above).\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 112, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1268, Oct. 19 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1451, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4377 (Murphy), 11 September 2002'),(405034,'rcs','00000001.00000065',1016,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002','Activity Levels','Activity Levels',1032535094,'Rule 1016/13 (Power=2)\nActivity Levels\n\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not\n permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules\n that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to\n perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and\n deregistering.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002'),(405035,'rcs','00000001.00000065',1940,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',1032535094,'Rule 1940/6 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n (a) The Rules may designate certain compensations to be periodic\n compensations. At the beginning of each month, each\n periodic compensation required to be paid out shall be paid\n out by the Officer required to do so.\n\n (b) The Minimum Income, the Distributor\'s Gratuity, the\n Speaker\'s Gratuity, and the Salary for each Office are\n periodic compensations.\n\n (c) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Minimum Income to each\n active Player, and shall further pay out to each Player the\n designated Salary for each Office that Player held for at\n least 16 days of the previous month.\n\n (d) The Payroll Clerk shall pay out the Distributor\'s Gratuity\n to the Distributor if the Distributor is a Player and was\n both the Distributor and a Player for at least 16 days of\n the previous month.\n\n (e) The Registrar shall pay out the Speaker\'s Gratuity to a\n Player if that Player was Speaker for at least 16 days of\n the previous month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4361 (Steve), 16 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002'),(405036,'rcs','00000001.00000065',698,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1032535094,'Rule 698/10 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n Each Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ, unless a\n Rule specifically makes em ineligible. Non-active Players are\n ineligible to Judge CFJs.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but -\n after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account\n - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:\n\n a) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n b) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n c) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n d) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become\n eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n e) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has\n happened upon a generational ship whose members are in\n suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.\n\n This Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002'),(405037,'rcs','00000001.00000065',1887,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002','Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure','Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure',1032535094,'Rule 1887/18 (Power=1)\nAuctions and the Default Auction Procedure\n\n When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not\n specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction\n Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,\n the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.\n\n The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:\n\n (a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the\n Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and\n announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require\n (or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify\n which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or\n may) initiate it.\n\n (b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction;\n non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the\n time a Player sends eir bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction\n cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first\n announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player\n authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must\n contain:\n (1) the identity of the Auctioneer;\n (2) the Auction Currency;\n (3) the number of items being Auctioned; and\n (4) the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required\n elements is missing from the announcement initiating the\n Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the\n Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,\n then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to\n have been legal and correct for the purposes of the\n Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to\n have occurred.\n\n (g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value\n of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is\n equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying\n the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of\n eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during\n the Auction. A bid is only valid if it satisfies the\n following conditions:\n (1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before\n its end;\n (2) the amount of the bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the\n Auction Currency; and\n (3) the amount of the bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (i) Cancelling bids: a bidder may cancel eir bid while the\n Auction is in progress by publically identifying the bid to\n be cancelled.\n\n (j) End of Auction: the Auction ends if any of the following\n occur:\n (1) one week has passed from the start of the Auction, and\n no bids have been made; or\n (2) a bid has been made in the Auction, and 72 hours have\n passed without there being a change in the N highest\n bids in the Auction; or\n (3) 14 days have passed since the Auction began.\n\n (k) Winning bids: when the Auction ends, the winning bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid bids in the Auction (or all\n valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids. If there were no bids in the Auction, then\n the Auction has no winner.\n\n (l) Final Auction Price: the Final Auction Price is either:\n (1) the amount of the Nth highest bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled bids in the auction; or\n (2) the Starting Bid, if there were greater than zero but\n fewer than N valid uncancelled bids.\n\n (m) Billing for winning bids: as soon as possible after the end\n of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning\n bids and issue to each winning bidder a separate bill for\n each of eir winning bids.\n\n (n) Defaulting: a winning bidder has a week from the time e is\n billed by the Auctioneer for a winning bid e made to satisfy\n the debt arising from that bid. If e does not do so, e\n commits the Class 2 Infraction of Defaulting (reportable by\n the Auctioneer), and thereafter loses eir right to purchase\n the Auctioned item by paying the debt arising from that\n bid. As soon as possible after a winning bidder defaults on\n a bid, the Auctioneer shall Order the owner of the items\n being Auctioned (normally the Bank) to forgive the\n unsatisfied debt arising from the bid.\n\n (o) Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the\n winning bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002'),(405038,'rcs','00000001.00000065',1984,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002','Raffles','Raffles',1032535094,'Rule 1984/6 (Power=1)\nRaffles\n\n There is a type of Auction called a Raffle. The Auction\n Procedure for a Raffle is the same as the Default Auction\n Procedure, with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is known as the Riff-Raff.\n\n (b) Start of Raffle: the Raffle begins when the first\n announcement that a Raffle has begun is made by a Player\n authorized to initiate the Raffle. The announcement must\n contain:\n (1) the identity of the Riff-Raff;\n (2) the Raffle Currency;\n (3) the number of items, N, being Raffled; and\n (4) the Ticket Price, a multiple of the MUQ of the Raffle\n Currency.\n\n (c) Ticket Price: all tickets shall have the same Ticket Price.\n If not otherwise specified, the Ticket Price shall be equal\n to the MUQ of the Raffle Currency.\n\n (d) Buying tickets: each active Player may buy tickets in the\n Raffle; non-active Players may not buy tickets. An entrant\n buys a ticket by paying a Fee equal to the Ticket Price to\n the Bank, provided that the purchase is not made before the\n start of the Raffle, or after its end. Each entrant may buy\n as many tickets as e likes during the Raffle.\n\n (e) End of Raffle: the Raffle ends if any of the following\n occur:\n (1) one week has passed from the start of the Raffle, and no\n tickets have been purchased; or\n (2) a ticket has been purchased in the Raffle, and 72 hours\n have passed without another ticket being purchased in\n the\n Raffle;\n (3) 14 days have passed since the Raffle began.\n\n (f) Winning tickets: When the Raffle ends, the Riff-Raff shall\n randomly determine N valid Raffle tickets to be winning\n tickets. Each Raffle ticket has one chance to win, and\n multiple Raffle tickets bought by the same entrant may win.\n If there were less than N valid Raffle tickets, then all\n valid Raffle tickets are winning tickets.\n\n (g) Announcing winners: as soon as possible after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff shall announce the winning tickets.\n Upon this announcement, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to each\n winning entrant for each of eir winning tickets.\n\n (h) Riff-Raff\'s Gratuity: within a week after the end of the\n Raffle, the Riff-Raff may pay out to emself the Ticket Price\n in the Raffle Currency if:\n (1) the Raffle had at least three separate winning entrants,\n not including the Riff-Raff; and\n (2) the Riff-Raff has not already done so for that Raffle.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4177 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4265 (Steve), 17 March 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002'),(405039,'rcs','00000001.00000066',1989,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4389 (Steve), 5 October 2002','Prime Executors','Prime Executors',1034371927,'Rule 1989/1 (Power=1)\nPrime Executors\n\n (a) The Prime Executor of an entity with respect to a certain\n action is the Player who is responsible for performing that\n action. For each action that an entity is required to\n perform, there shall be at most one Prime Executor of that\n entity with respect to that action. Any penalty incurred due\n to an entity\'s failure to perform as required by the Rules\n is incurred by the Prime Executor of that entity.\n\n (b) Any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the Prime\n Executor of an entity with respect to a certain action must\n be an Executor of that entity, or a Limited Executor of that\n entity who is permitted to perform that action on behalf of\n that entity.\n\n (c) If the Rules designate a Player to be the Prime Executor of\n an entity, without specifying particular actions that the\n Prime Executor is responsible for performing, then that\n Player is the Prime Executor of that entity with respect to\n all actions that the entity is required to perform.\n\n (d) Unless otherwise specified by the Rules, each Player is eir\n own Prime Executor.\n\n (e) If a Player is the sole Executor of an entity, then e is the\n Prime Executor of that entity. This provision does not apply\n to a Player who is the sole Limited Executor, but not the\n Executor, of an entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4389 (Steve), 5 October 2002'),(405040,'rcs','00000001.00000066',1016,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002','Activity Levels','Activity Levels',1034371927,'Rule 1016/14 (Power=2)\nActivity Levels\n\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not\n permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules\n that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to\n perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and\n deregistering.\n\n Not being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002'),(405041,'rcs','00000001.00000067',1910,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002','Stems','Stems',1034542803,'Rule 1910/6 (Power=1)\nStems\n\n Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.\n\n Transfers of Stems are permitted only if at least one of the\n following is true:\n\n (1) either the transferor or the transferee is the Bank;\n (2) the Stems are to be transferred from a Dissolute to a player\n who has the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that\n Dissolute; or\n (3) the transferee is a Group;\n (4) either the transferor or the transferee is a Money Grubbing\n Contest, and the regulations of the Contest(s) involved in\n the transfer specifically permit the transfer.\n\n All other transfers of Stems are prohibited.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002'),(405042,'rcs','00000001.00000067',2004,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002','Land Auctions','Land Auctions',1034542803,'Rule 2004/3 (Power=1)\nLand Auctions\n\n As soon as possible after the tenth day of each Month, the\n Mapkeepor shall, if the number of units of Private Land is less\n than one half the total number of units of Land, auction a\n number of units of Land not to exceed 10. The units of Land to\n be Auctioned are:\n * if there exist at least 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: any 10 such Units of Land, to\n be chosen by the Mapkeepor;\n * if there exist fewer than 10 Units of non-Aether Land in the\n possession of the Land Bureau: all such Units.\n\n There shall be a separate Auction for each Unit of Land under\n consideration. These Auctions shall be conducted concurrently.\n For each of these Auctions:\n * The item to be Auctioned is the piece of Land in question.\n * The Procedure to be used is the Vickrey Auction.\n * The Default Auction Currency shall be Indulgences; however,\n the Auctioneer may select a different Bank Currency with 2\n Supporters.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4234 (Goethe), 29 November 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002'),(405043,'rcs','00000001.00000067',2022,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002','Sente and Gote','Sente and Gote',1034542803,'Rule 2022/3 (Power=1)\nSente and Gote\n\n On the fifteenth of each Nomic Month, the following actions\n occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the\n Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:\n\n (i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly\n connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by\n its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to\n Aether.\n\n (ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so\n transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.\n\n (iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the\n Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.\n\n (iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land\n Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land\n Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units\n of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units\n of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.\n\n (v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out:\n (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times\n the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players and Groups\n whose location has Sente;\n (b) to the owner of any Land Unit that has Sente and is\n not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau:\n * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n\n Sente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on\n the fifteenth of each Nomic Month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4308 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002'),(405044,'rcs','00000001.00000068',2035,'Created by Proposal 4397 (RedKnight), 17 October 2002','The Unready are Ineligible','The Unready are Ineligible',1035556841,'Rule 2035/0 (Power=2)\nThe Unready are Ineligible\n\n When a player becomes unready e begins to Turn Around And\n Around. If at any time an Unready player is not Turning Around\n And Around e begins to Turn Around And Around.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4397 (RedKnight), 17 October 2002'),(405045,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1870,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Merry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!','Merry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!',1035558487,'Rule 1870/2 (Power=1)\nMerry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3819 (Steve), Dec. 28 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405046,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1750,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Read the Ruleset Week','Read the Ruleset Week',1035558487,'Rule 1750/1 (Power=1)\nRead the Ruleset Week\n\n The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February\n is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the\n ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405047,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1016,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4400 (Pakaran), 23 October 2002','Activity Levels','Activity Levels',1035558487,'Rule 1016/14 (Power=2)\nActivity Levels\n\n Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one\n of active, inactive, and frozen. A player\'s activity level may\n not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the\n rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates\n activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have\n because of eir activity level.\n\n An activity level of active is higher than any other activity\n level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity\n level of frozen.\n\n Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active.\n\n A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does\n so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do\n not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the\n player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active\n until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive.\n\n An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does\n so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active.\n\n A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may\n increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and\n indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not\n permit that player to change to that activity level.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively. \"put in cold storage\" is an\n unambiguous synonym for \"frozen\".\n\n Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action.\n\n Not being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4400 (Pakaran), 23 October 2002'),(405048,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1986,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4401 (Goddess Eris), 23 October 2002','Role-Based Powers','Role-Based Powers',1035558487,'Rule 1986/5 (Power=2)\nRole-Based Powers\n\n A Scribe may Rubberstamp a Proposal by paying a Fee in Papyri,\n or receiving the Support of a number of other Scribes, equal to\n the number of Proposals that the Scribe has previously\n Rubberstamped in the current Agoran Week (minimum zero). A\n Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable: this does not\n change its Distribution Fee.\n\n An Acolyte may absolve (remove) 1 Blot from any Entity by paying\n Fee in Indulgences, or receiving the Support of a number of\n other Acolytes, equal to the number of such Absolutions the\n Acolyte has previously performed in the current Agoran Week\n (minimum zero).\n\n An Acolyte may Exorcise a Dissolute Entity with the Support of\n another Acolyte. The effect of Exorcism is to instantly\n transfer all of the Entity\'s Indulgences to the Bank.\n\n An Acolyte with the Support of a Scribe, or a Scribe with the\n Support of an Acolyte, may Bless an Undistributed Proposal. A\n moment after its Distribution, a Blessed Proposal becomes\n Democratic if it is not already.\n\n A Politician, with the Support of another Politician, may\n Unbless an Undistributed Blessed Proposal. An Unblessed\n Proposal is no longer Blessed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4174 (Kelly), 7 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4254 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4401 (Goddess Eris), 23 October 2002'),(405049,'rcs','00000001.00000069',2016,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Contested Proposals','Contested Proposals',1035558487,'Rule 2016/1 (Power=2)\nContested Proposals\n\n (a) A null Proposal is a Proposal containing no provisions,\n i.e., one that does not propose any Rule Changes, or any\n other changes to the game state.\n\n (b) Any Player may make a null Proposal Distributable without\n payment of the usual Fee, provided that no other null\n Proposal in the current Agoran Month has been made\n Distributable under this provision.\n\n (c) The first null Proposal to be distributed in each Agoran\n Month is a Contested Proposal.\n\n (d) A Contested Proposal is Democratic.\n\n (e) Notwithstanding the prevailing Mode of Voting on Proposals,\n voting on a Contested Proposal is always Unrestricted. This\n Rule takes precedence over Rules that determine the\n permissible methods for casting votes on Proposals.\n\n (f) If a Contested Proposal fails Quorum, no Points are Awarded.\n\n (g) If a Contested Proposal achieves Quorum, but fails, each\n Player who voted against the Proposal and did not vote for\n it may be Awarded 10 Points.\n\n (h) If a Contested Proposal is adopted, each Player who voted\n for the Proposal and did not vote against it may be Awarded\n 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4264 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405050,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1562,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Excess CFJs','Excess CFJs',1035558487,'Rule 1562/7 (Power=1)\nExcess CFJs\n\n A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ.\n\n The Caller of an Excess CFJ commits the Class 1 Infraction of\n Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall dismiss all Excess CFJs. If e\n instead assigns one to a Judge, then the Judge shall Judge it,\n but the Clerk of the Courts commits the Class 2 Infraction of\n Allowing Excess CFJing, to be reported by the Justiciar.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405051,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1922,'Amended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1035558487,'Rule 1922/4 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\n (e) Groovy, which may be awarded to any Player Winning the Game\n at least once since the introduction of this Patent Title\n and demonstrating eir total coolness by Winning the Game at\n least once by each of at least three distinct win\n conditions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002'),(405052,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1888,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4403 (OscarMeyr), 23 October 2002','Private Auctions','Private Auctions',1035558487,'Rule 1888/2 (Power=1)\nPrivate Auctions\n\n The Auction Procedure for a Private Auction is the same as the\n Default Auction Procedure with the following modifications:\n\n (a) Bidders: any Player with the same Executor as the Auctioneer\n may bid only in the first 72 hours of the Auction.\n\n (b) Bidding: if a bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then eir bids must be made publicly. Otherwise,\n bidders must send eir bids privately to the Auctioneer.\n\n (c) Canceling Bids: if a Bidder has the same Executor as the\n Auctioneer, then eir Bids must be canceled publicly.\n Otherwise, bidders must cancel eir bids privately to the\n Auctioneer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4403 (OscarMeyr), 23 October 2002'),(405053,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1479,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4402 (Steve), 23 October 2002','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"','Definition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"',1035558487,'Rule 1479/6 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Pay Out\" and \"Bill\"\n\n (a) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, the Bank shall incur a debt to\n that entity for those Properties, and the named Player\n shall, as soon as possible, post a public notice of the\n debt. The Player is relieved of this obligation if the debt\n is satisfied before the public notice is posted.\n\n (b) If a Rule explicitly permits a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, but does not require em to do so,\n then the Bank shall incur a debt to that entity for those\n Properties when the Player posts a public notice of the\n debt.\n\n (c) Whenever a Rule requires a Player to bill an entity for one\n or more Properties, that entity shall incur a debt to the\n Bank for those Properties, and the named Player shall, as\n soon as possible, post a public notice of the debt. The\n Player is relieved of this obligation if the bill is paid\n before the public notice is posted.\n\nCFJ 1301 (Judged TRUE, 13 June 2001): \"Rule 1479 should be interpreted\n such that an Order, which requires a Player to pay out one or more\n Properties to some entity, and which is valid and proper under the\n Rules, causes the Bank to incur one or more debts to the named\n entity.\"\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2476, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4353 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4364 (Steve), 16 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4402 (Steve), 23 October 2002'),(405054,'rcs','00000001.00000069',2015,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','A Champion\'s Retirement','A Champion\'s Retirement',1035558487,'Rule 2015/1 (Power=1)\nA Champion\'s Retirement\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, the Winner\'s Stipend may\n not be changed except as permitted by this Rule.\n\n If a Player Wins the Game by Bearing the Patent Title\n SemiGenius, The Winner\'s Stipend shall be set equal to\n proportion, rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.1, of Active\n Players (out of total number of Active Players at the time of\n the Win) that were Contestants, at any time since the most\n recent previous Win, in the Champion\'s Contest that Awarded that\n Patent Title.\n\n In this case, the Scorekeepor shall pay out the Champion\'s\n Pension, equal to this new Winner\'s Stipend times the BOS, to\n the Contestmaster who awarded the Patent Title.\n\n If a Player Wins the Game by any other Win Condition, the\n Winner\'s Stipend shall be set to 0.5, and no Champion\'s Pension\n shall be awarded.\n\n If a Player bears the Patent Title Current Champion at the\n beginning of four consecutive Agoran months without a Win\n occuring, then at the beginning each month thereafter, until a\n Win occurs, the Scorekeepor shall Bill the Player an amount\n equal to twice the current Winner\'s Stipend times the BOS.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405055,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1712,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1035558487,'Rule 1712/17 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Agoran Month,\n less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to\n other entities during that same Agoran Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405056,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1747,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Pardoning Lawlessness','Pardoning Lawlessness',1035558487,'Rule 1747/6 (Power=1)\nPardoning Lawlessness\n\n The Clerk of the Courts has the power to Pardon Fugitives from\n Justice that have been deregistered for Lawlessness. The Clerk\n may not exercise this power more than once per Agoran month, and\n may not Pardon the same person twice in a given term of Office\n (although, if re-elected later, e may again Pardon that person).\n The Clerk of the Courts Pardons a Fugitive from Justice by\n publicly announcing e is doing so. Then the following events\n shall occur:\n\n i) The Clerk of the Courts shall expunge as many of the\n Fugitive\'s Blots as required to reduce eir Stain to one\n less than the threshold for Lawlessness, and notify the\n Herald of this action.\n\n ii) After the above step has been completed, the Fugitive may\n reregister as a Player.\n\n iii) The Pardoned Player shall then publish a Formal Apology\n for eir Lawlessness. The CotC may include a list of up to\n ten Prescribed Words in eir Pardon.\n\n iv) For three months after being Pardoned, the Pardoned Player\n may only use Indulgences to expunge Blots from eir record\n and may not transfer any Indulgences for any other\n purpose.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule governing Lawlessness,\n or when a deregistered Player may reregister.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3586 (Vlad), Nov. 14 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3931 (Crito), Oct. 17 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4038 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405057,'rcs','00000001.00000069',1990,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Points Contests','Points Contests',1035558487,'Rule 1990/2 (Power=1)\nPoints Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states\n that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the\n Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Agoran\n month.\n\n PWIN is the number of points required for a Player to achieve a\n win condition, as defined elsewhere in the Rules. PPP (Points\n Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.\n\n Once during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a\n Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of\n Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s\n Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be\n awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants\n may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing.\n The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained\n in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.\n\n The total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each\n such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of\n Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the\n 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are\n listed the Notice is invalid.\n\n The total number of Points that a single Player may receive from\n all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN\n divided by five. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a\n Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is\n invalid for that Player only.\n\n The posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event\n Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4191 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405058,'rcs','00000001.00000069',2031,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Money Grubbing Contests','Money Grubbing Contests',1035558487,'Rule 2031/2 (Power=1)\nMoney Grubbing Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Money Grubbing Contest if its ACO\n specifically states that it is a Money Grubbing Contest. A\n Player may not be the Contestmaster of more than one Money\n Grubbing Contest in a single Agoran month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405059,'rcs','00000001.00000069',2003,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002','Actions in Arcadia','Actions in Arcadia',1035558487,'Rule 2003/7 (Power=1)\nActions in Arcadia\n\n Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to\n perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,\n\n - If the entity is a Player 10 minus 1 for every 5 Blots in the\n Player\'s Stain\n\n - If the entity is a Group 1 plus 3 for every Member of the\n Group located on or adjacent to the location of the Group at\n the start of the week.\n\n - All other entities zero.\n\n Action Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one\n week to the next.\n\n An entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in\n Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act.\n So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single\n week.\n\n When an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type\n chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous\n alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land\n Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible\n after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies\n an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Type was used for that act.\n\n Players may expend:\n\n * 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not\n Aether.\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;\n\n Groups may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the\n location of one of its Members.\n\n Any entity may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to\n any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located\n at that Land Unit.\n\n * 5 Movement Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit\n that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type\n Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating\n Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination.\n This movement has no effect if there are no qualifying Land\n Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the\n Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Unit, if any, is changed by this movement. The change occurs\n at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor\n declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.\n\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current\n location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if\n and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that\n is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.\n\n Unless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions\n and moves in Arcadia are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002'),(405060,'rcs','00000001.00000069',2005,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002','Tolls','Tolls',1035558487,'Rule 2005/2 (Power=1)\nTolls\n\n An Entity who owns Land may impose a Toll on any (currently\n un-Tolled) piece of Land e owns. To do so, e must pay a Fee of\n 0.2 Indulgences and publicly announce that e is imposing a\n Toll, clearly and unambiguously identifying the Unit of Land in\n question, as well as the amount of the Toll for that Unit of\n Land.\n\n A Toll is a number of VEs, Indulgences, or Papyri. No Unit of\n Land may have a Toll in other currencies, or in more than one of\n these currencies. No Toll shall be greater than 200 times the\n MUQ of the currency in which it is denominated. If an entity\n (the Tollee) Moves into a Unit of Land which is at the time\n owned by another Entity (the Toller), and for which there is at\n the time a Toll established, e (the Tollee) is said to be In\n Toll to the Unit of Land in question, for the amount of the Toll\n on that unit of land (at the time of the Move)\n\n The owner (Toller) of a Unit of Land may notify the Mapkeepor\n that e believes an entity has been In Toll to a Unit of Land\n owned by em; to do so, e submits a Notification of Toll, which\n must unambiguously describe the Unit of Land in question, the\n amount of the Toll, and the Entity (alleged Tollee) in question.\n The alleged Move must have occurred within the past week. A\n Entity may submit only one such Notification for a given Unit of\n Land in a single week, and may not submit substantially the same\n Notification two weeks in a row. Any Notification of Toll\n contrary to this Rule is invalid and shall be discarded.\n\n If, in the Mapkeepor\'s determination, the alleged Tollee was in\n fact, in the week before the Notification, In Toll to the\n specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, the Mapkeepor\n shall confirm the Toll by publicly informing the Tollee and the\n Toller. The Tollee then incurs to the Toller a debt equal to\n the Toll specified in the Notification. If, in the Mapkeepor\'s\n determination, the alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the\n specified Unit of Land for the specified amount, e shall deny\n the Notification by informing the Toller of eir determination.\n\n If the Mapkeepor fails to respond to a valid Notification of\n Toll, e commits the Class 2 Crime of Looking the Other Way. If\n the Mapkeepor confirms a Notification of Toll when in fact the\n alleged Tollee was not In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for\n the specified amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3\n Crime of Conspiracy to Commit Highway Robbery. If the Mapkeeper\n denies a Notification of Toll when in fact the alleged Tollee\n was In Toll to the specified Unit of Land for the specified\n amount, e (the Mapkeepor) commits the Class 3 Crime of Not\n Feeding the Toll Under the Bridge.\n\n An Entity may remove a Toll from any Tolled Unit of Land e owns\n by publicly announcing that e does so. If an entity loses\n possession of a Unit of Land, all Tolls imposed on that Unit by\n that Entity are removed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4210 (neil), 10 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4228 (root), 22 November 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002'),(405061,'rcs','00000001.00000069',2022,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Sente and Gote','Sente and Gote',1035558487,'Rule 2022/4 (Power=1)\nSente and Gote\n\n On the fifteenth of each Agoran Month, the following actions\n occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the\n Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:\n\n (i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly\n connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by\n its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to\n Aether.\n\n (ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so\n transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.\n\n (iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the\n Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.\n\n (iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land\n Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land\n Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units\n of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units\n of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.\n\n (v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out:\n (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times\n the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players and Groups\n whose location has Sente;\n (b) to the owner of any Land Unit that has Sente and is\n not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau:\n * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n\n Sente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on\n the fifteenth of each Agoran Month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4308 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405062,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1023,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Definition of \"As Soon As Possible\"','Definition of \"As Soon As Possible\"',1036430286,'Rule 1023/16 (Power=2)\nDefinition of \"As Soon As Possible\"\n\n A requirement to perform an action \"as soon as possible\" is a\n requirement to perform the action within a week.\n\n If a Player fails to observe such a requirement, and no other\n Rule defines a penalty for the failure, then the Player commits\n the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness, which may be reported by\n any Player.\n\n This Rule does not prevent late actions from taking effect, but\n merely penalizes the Player for being late.\n\n Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to\n non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule.\n\n[CFJ 1075: Rule 1023 should be interpreted such that no Rule with\n lower precedence than it can succeed in prohibiting activity of a\n purely discussionary nature.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405063,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1016,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002','Activity Levels','Activity Levels',1036430286,'Rule 1016/16 (Power=2)\nActivity Levels\n\n (a) Each player has an activity level, which is either active or\n inactive. \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms\n for \"active\" and \"inactive\", respectively.\n\n (b) Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e is active.\n\n (c) A player may change eir activity level by announcing that e\n does so, provided that a week has passed since e last\n changed eir activity level.\n\n (d) Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office,\n or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be\n required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless\n the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive\n players to perform that duty or action.\n\n (e) This rule takes precedence over each other rule that\n regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a\n player may have because of eir activity level.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4400 (Pakaran), 23 October 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002'),(405064,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1042,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1036430286,'Rule 1042/18 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never\n more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts\n to a public forum, that player is noisy.\n\n (b) A player who has not quietened another player in the past 24\n hours may do so by publically identifying the player and\n stating that e causes that player to become quiet.\n\n (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned\n the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if\n the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002'),(405065,'rcs','00000001.00000070',2036,'Created by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002','The Silent Treatment','The Silent Treatment',1036430286,'Rule 2036/0 (Power=1)\nThe Silent Treatment\n\n (a) The publication of a Notice of Abandonment commences the\n Silent Treatment for the player identified in it.\n\n (b) The requirement to perform the actions described in this\n Rule is subject to the Notice of Abandonment remaining\n valid. If at any time during the Silent Treatment the Notice\n of Abandonment is invalid, then the Treatment is terminated,\n and the Registrar is relieved of all powers and\n responsibilities regarding it.\n\n (c) As soon as possible after the commencement of the Silent\n Treatment, the Registrar shall:\n\n (1) publically confirm whether the Notice of Abandonment was\n valid at the commencement of the Silent Treatment, and\n whether it remains valid;\n\n (2) publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to the\n preferred email address of the player, if e has one, a\n Notice of Intent to Deregister, identifying the player\n to be deregistered (the same as in the Notice of\n Abandonment), and announcing the Registrar\'s intent to\n deregister that player after one month has passed.\n\n (d) If the Notice of Abandonment remains valid a month after the\n publication of the Notice of Intent to Deregister, then the\n Registrar shall, as soon as possible, publish in all\n designated Public Fora, and send to the preferred email\n address of the player, if e has one, a Notice of\n Deregistration, identifying the player being deregistered\n (the same as in the Notice of Abandonment). A Notice of\n Deregistration is valid if and only if it is published by\n the Registrar, following the procedures described in this\n Rule.\n\n (e) Upon publication of a valid Notice of Deregistration, the\n following events occur in order:\n\n (1) if the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration\n is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker\n Abandonment; e ceases to be Speaker, and the\n Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;\n\n (2) the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is\n deregistered;\n\n (3) the Silent Treatment for that player concludes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002'),(405066,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1553,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Officer Transition','Officer Transition',1036430286,'Rule 1553/3 (Power=1)\nOfficer Transition\n\n Whenever a Player ceases to hold an Office, that Player shall\n make a reasonable effort to ensure that all materials necessary\n for the conduct of that Office, including any records the holder\n of that Office is required to maintain, are made available to\n the next Player to hold that Office. A Player who fails to do\n so commits the Class 4 Crime of Improper Officer Transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2429 (favor), Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405067,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1724,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Urgent Proposals','Urgent Proposals',1036430286,'Rule 1724/8 (Power=1)\nUrgent Proposals\n\n A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met:\n\n i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted\n explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal,\n\n ii) The Proposal is Interested.\n\n An Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.\n\n The Promotor may distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it\n becomes Distributable, and e is required to do so within five\n days. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Lack of\n Urgency, which may be reported by any Player.\n\n The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the\n time the Proposal is distributed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3508 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3922 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3945 (Peekee), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405068,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1434,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting',1036430286,'Rule 1434/10 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Referendum Voting\n\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is 50% of the eligible Voters at the beginning\n of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then the\n Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not\n challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector\n announces them, then the announced results are the true\n results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in\n error.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1456, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2585, May 1 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2783 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002'),(405069,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1794,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',1036430286,'Rule 1794/5 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an\n Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is\n of the first class that matches.\n\n (a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the\n effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n\n (b) A Sentencing Order is an Order executed to impose the\n penalty for a Crime.\n\n (c) A Ticketing Order is an Order executed to impose the\n penalty for an Infraction.\n\n (d) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of\n Appeals.\n\n (e) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the\n course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.\n\n (f) An Administrative Order is an Order executed by an\n Officer in the course of performing the duties or\n privileges of that Office. For the purpose of this\n Rule, the following positions are deemed to be Offices:\n\n (i) The Speaker.\n (ii) The Recordkeepor of a Currency.\n\n (g) Any other Order is a Private Order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405070,'rcs','00000001.00000070',591,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Legal Judgements','Legal Judgements',1036430286,'Rule 591/18 (Power=1)\nLegal Judgements\n\n The Judge of a CFJ Judges it by submitting eir Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. \"Decision\", \"Finding\", and \"Response\" are\n unambiguous synonyms for \"Judgement\".\n\n For a Trial Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the following:\n TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of\n the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence,\n or other material included with the Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1451, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(405071,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1803,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Judicial and Sentencying Orders','Judicial and Sentencying Orders',1036430286,'Rule 1803/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial and Sentencying Orders\n\n Judicial Orders and Sentencing Orders are executed by being sent\n to the Clerk of the Courts, but do not take effect until their\n publication by the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts\n shall publish each Judicial Order and Sentencing Order as soon\n as possible after receiving it from the Judge who executed it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405072,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1804,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders','Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders',1036430286,'Rule 1804/2 (Power=1)\nAppeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders\n\n As soon as possible after a Judicial Order or Sentencing Order\n is Appealed, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay it. If the\n Appeal is sustained, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate this\n stay as soon as possible. If the Appeal is sustained, then the\n Board of Appeals shall vacate the stayed Order as soon as\n possible.\n\n In the Appeal of a Judicial Order or Sentencing Order, the Board\n of Appeals shall consider whether the Order was properly and\n validly executed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405073,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1827,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Granting or Denying Motions','Granting or Denying Motions',1036430286,'Rule 1827/5 (Power=1)\nGranting or Denying Motions\n\n A Judge must either grant or deny each Motion forwarded to em by\n the Clerk of the Courts, within five days of when the Motion was\n received by the Judge. E may, but need not, state the reasons\n for eir grant or denial. A Judge grants or denies a Motion by\n sending eir determination on that Motion to the Clerk of the\n Courts, along with any reasons e chooses to provide.\n\n The effect of granting a Motion depends on the nature of the\n Motion granted, but generally amounts to requiring the Judge to\n perform as requested by the Motion.\n\n Upon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk\n shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on\n the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the\n Motion of that determination.\n\n If a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within five days of\n when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, e\n commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Slow Motion, which may be\n reported by the Clerk of the Courts. If this occurs, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one as\n usual.\n\n If a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original\n Judge of that case is not active or is not a player, then a new\n Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4160 (root), 5 June 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405074,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1564,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',1036430286,'Rule 1564/12 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The following are subject to Appeal:\n\n a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.\n b) The grant or denial of a Motion.\n c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order.\n d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required\n judicial duty.\n\n A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:\n\n i) Three Players Appeal it.\n ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em.\n iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a\n Crime.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405075,'rcs','00000001.00000070',908,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Formal Apologies','Formal Apologies',1036430286,'Rule 908/15 (Power=1)\nFormal Apologies\n\n If a Player (hereafter the Ninny) is convicted of a Crime, then\n instead of executing Sentencing Orders, the Judge may (Without\n Objection) Order the Ninny to publish a Formal Apology. Such an\n Order is known as an Order to Apologize.\n\n A Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain\n the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for\n self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may\n include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of\n which must appear in the Formal Apology.\n\n Failure to obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours is the\n Class 3 Infraction of Shamelessness, to be reported by the Judge\n who issued the Order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 781, ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 908, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1362, Dec. 13 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1382, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2432, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Apr. 1 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2789 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, Nov. 11 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 908, Nov. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405076,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1504,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Sentencing Orders','Sentencing Orders',1036430286,'Rule 1504/7 (Power=1)\nSentencing Orders\n\n Upon a judicial finding that an entity has committed a Crime,\n the Judge so finding shall execute, as soon as possible, either:\n\n a) all and only those Sentencing Orders necessary and\n sufficient to impose the penalty for that Crime; or\n\n b) (Without Objection) an Order to Apologize.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405077,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1812,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Notices of Infraction','Notices of Infraction',1036430286,'Rule 1812/6 (Power=1)\nNotices of Infraction\n\n If an entity (hereafter the Jaywalker) commits an Infraction,\n then any Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission\n of that Infraction (hereafter the Traffic Cop) may publish a\n Notice of Infraction. This Notice shall explicitly specify the\n following:\n\n a) The Infraction that has been committed.\n b) The identity of the Jaywalker.\n c) The Rule(s) defining that action or inaction as an\n Infraction.\n d) The action or inaction by which the Jaywalker committed the\n Infraction.\n e) All and only those Ticketing Orders necessary and\n sufficient to impose the penalty for that Infraction. The\n Orders are executed and take effect upon publication.\n\n When a Player publishes a Claim of Error alleging that the\n Jaywalker did not commit the Infraction, e may (in the same\n message as the COE) stay one or more of the Ticketing Orders.\n If the COE is denied, then the Traffic Cop shall vacate the\n Order to Stay as soon as possible. If the COE is admitted, then\n the Traffic Cop shall vacate all the stayed Ticketing Orders as\n soon as possible.\n\n Players are encouraged to CFJ on the commission of Infractions\n only when a question of interpretation, rather than of fact,\n arises.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3934 (Wes), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4369 (RedKnight), 29 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405078,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1816,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','No Double Jeopardy for Crimes','No Double Jeopardy for Crimes',1036430286,'Rule 1816/2 (Power=3)\nNo Double Jeopardy for Crimes\n\n No Player may be penalized more than once for any single action\n or inaction.\n\n If a non-dismissed CFJ alleges that a Player has committed a\n Crime through a given action or inaction, then any further CFJ\n alleging that the same Player has committed the same Crime\n through the same action or inaction lacks standing and shall be\n dismissed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4341 (Steve), 8 July 2002\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4341 (Steve), 8 July 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405079,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1505,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions',1036430286,'Rule 1505/9 (Power=1)\nStandard Classes of Crimes and Infractions\n\n A Class N Infraction (where N is replaced with a number) is an\n Infraction for which the penalty is N Blots.\n\n A Class N Crime (where N is replaced with a number) is a Crime\n for which the penalty is N Blots and a loss of 2*N Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2431 (favor), Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1505, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002'),(405080,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1930,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002','Scoring','Scoring',1036430286,'Rule 1930/5 (Power=1)\nScoring\n\n (a) If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded 10\n Points.\n\n (b) If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized 5\n Points.\n\n (c) If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.\n\n (d) If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded\n 15 Points.\n\n (e) If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized\n 10 Points.\n\n (f) If a Player submits a Disinterested Proposal which is\n Adopted, e may be Awarded 1 Point, plus 1 Point for each\n vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.\n\n (g) If a Player submits an Interested Proposal which is Adopted,\n e may be Awarded 4 Points, plus 1 Point for each vote that\n was cast AGAINST the Proposal.\n\n (h) If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST\n a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may\n be Awarded 2 Points.\n\n (i) If a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Awarded 5 Points\n\n (j) If a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Penalized 5 Points.\n\n (k) If a Player gains a Patent Title which e has not held during\n the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded 5 Points.\n\n (l) If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e\n may be Awarded 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4113 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4365 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002'),(405081,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1439,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Default Penalty for Violating a Rule','Default Penalty for Violating a Rule',1036430286,'Rule 1439/9 (Power=1)\nDefault Penalty for Violating a Rule\n\n Violating a Rule is the Class N Crime of Disobedience, unless\n other Rules define or prohibit a penalty for the violation. N\n is the Power of the violated Rule (rounded down to the nearest\n multiple of the MUQ of Indulgences), but shall not exceed 4.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1460, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1674, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2879 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic,\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823, (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405082,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1594,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Violation of SLCs','Violation of SLCs',1036430286,'Rule 1594/2 (Power=1)\nViolation of SLCs\n\n While a Player remains within the Jurisdiction of a SLC, e is\n required to abide by it, unless doing so would violate either\n the Rules or another SLC with higher precedence. Violation of\n this requirement is the Class 1 Crime of Insubordination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2490, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405083,'rcs','00000001.00000070',1457,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Judicial Procedure for Violations of an SLC','Judicial Procedure for Violations of an SLC',1036430286,'Rule 1457/12 (Power=1)\nJudicial Procedure for Violations of an SLC\n\n Only Players within the Jurisdiction of a SLC may CFJ that a\n Player has violated that SLC.\n\n All Players within the Jurisdiction of a SLC are automatically\n ineligible to Judge a CFJ that a Player has violated that SLC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1697, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2745 (Swann), Nov. 18 1996, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405084,'rcs','00000001.00000071',2020,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002','Parliamentary Votes','Parliamentary Votes',1037035581,'Rule 2020/2 (Power=1)\nParliamentary Votes\n\n (a) The First Estate consists of all Players who are Acolytes,\n the Second Estate of all Players who are Politicians, and\n the Third Estate of all Players who are Scribes.\n\n (b) To count the votes on a parliamentary proposal, the Assessor\n shall first count as preliminary votes all communications\n from Players and their Executors that would have been legal\n votes on the proposal if it had been sane.\n\n (c) For each Estate, the Assessor shall then use the preliminary\n votes of the Players in that Estate to determine a voting\n index for the Estate on the Proposal. If the voting index is\n greater than or equal to the adoption index of the proposal,\n then the Estate is deemed to have cast 1 vote FOR the\n proposal; otherwise, the Estate is deemed to have cast one\n vote AGAINST the proposal. The Estates are deemed to have\n cast their votes a moment before the end of the voting\n period.\n\n (d) Quorum for parliamentary proposals is determined using\n preliminary votes, and is calculated as it would be for a\n democratic proposal.\n\n (e) Votes cannot be cast on parliamentary proposals except as\n described in this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002'),(405085,'rcs','00000001.00000071',879,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002','Quorum','Quorum',1037035581,'Rule 879/19 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002'),(405086,'rcs','00000001.00000071',955,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal','Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal',1037035581,'Rule 955/8 (Power=3)\nVotes Required to Adopt a Proposal\n\n (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the\n uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be\n counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned\n a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no\n votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index\n shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting\n Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index\n shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of\n votes against.\n\n (b) If the Voting Index is greater than one, and greater than or\n equal to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum\n for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted.\n Otherwise, it fails.\n\n (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as\n described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except\n as described in this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002'),(405087,'rcs','00000001.00000072',1505,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4416 (OscarMeyr), 16 November 2002','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions',1037638173,'Rule 1505/10 (Power=1)\nStandard Classes of Crimes and Infractions\n\n A Class N Infraction (where N is replaced with a number) is an\n Infraction for which the penalty is N Blots. Such a penalty is\n assessed upon the execution of a Ticketing Order that Orders the\n Herald to record the penalty.\n\n A Class N Crime (where N is replaced with a number) is a Crime\n for which the penalty is N Blots and a loss of 2*N Points. Such\n a penalty is assessed upon the execution of a Sentencing Order\n that Orders the Herald to record the penalty, and a Notice of\n Award of the Points penalty.\n\n If such a Sentencing or Ticketing Order is vacated after the\n Herald has already recorded the penalty, then an equal number of\n Blots are expunged from the penalized entity. (If the entity\n has less Blots than the amount of the penalty, then all eir\n Blots are expunged.) In the case of a vacated Sentencing Order,\n the lost Points are to be Awarded back to the penalized entity,\n provided that the game has not been Won between the execution of\n the Sentencing Order and its vacation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2431 (favor), Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1505, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4416 (OscarMeyr), 16 November 2002'),(405088,'rcs','00000001.00000073',1042,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4418 (Steve), 25 November 2002','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1038252272,'Rule 1042/19 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never\n more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts\n to a public forum, that player is noisy.\n\n (b) A player who has not quietened another active, noisy player\n in the past 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player\n to become quiet by publically identifying the player and\n stating that e causes that player to become quiet.\n\n (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned\n the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if\n the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4418 (Steve), 25 November 2002'),(405089,'rcs','00000001.00000073',698,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4418 (Steve), 25 November 2002','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1038252272,'Rule 698/11 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given CFJ, unless\n a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players\n are ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge\n that CFJ.\n\n (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active barred players, other than the caller emself,\n become eligible to judge that CFJ.\n\n (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in\n serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is\n to panic, and run screaming for the hills.\n\n (c) This Rule takes precedence over other Rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4418 (Steve), 25 November 2002'),(405090,'rcs','00000001.00000073',1712,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4417 (Murphy), 25 November 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1038252272,'Rule 1712/18 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n (a) The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is equal to\n the number of Players plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n (b) The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the\n Bank which either:\n\n (1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in prior\n Indulgence Auctions that have not yet concluded; or\n\n (2) have been auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that\n have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning\n Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or\n\n (3) have been Auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that\n have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning\n Bids have been paid, but the Indulgences have not been\n transferred to the Winning Bidders.\n\n (c) The Indulgence Surplus is the difference between the IICL\n and the AICL; if the AICL is greater than the IICL, the\n Indulgence Surplus is zero.\n\n (d) If the Indulgence Surplus is positive at the beginning of\n the month, the Herald shall as soon as possible auction off\n the surplus Indulgences. The items to be auctioned are\n individual Indulgences; the number of items is equal to the\n Indulgence Surplus, rounded down to the nearest integer. The\n Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be\n conducted in Stems.\n\n (e) The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of\n Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank\n during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences\n transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same\n Nomic Month.\n\n (f) If the Indulgence Surplus is zero or negative at the\n beginning of the month, the Herald may still conduct an\n Indulgence auction, but only if e initiates it within one\n week after the beginning of the month. The items to be\n auctioned are individual Indulgences; the number of items is\n chosen by the Herald, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of\n half the MBIG, rounded down to the nearest integer. The\n Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be\n conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4417 (Murphy), 25 November 2002'),(405091,'rcs','00000001.00000074',1042,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1039369593,'Rule 1042/18 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never\n more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts\n to a public forum, that player is noisy.\n\n (b) A player who has not quietened another player in the past 24\n hours may do so by publically identifying the player and\n stating that e causes that player to become quiet.\n\n (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned\n the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if\n the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002'),(405092,'rcs','00000001.00000074',698,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1039369593,'Rule 698/10 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n Each Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ, unless a\n Rule specifically makes em ineligible. Non-active Players are\n ineligible to Judge CFJs.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but -\n after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account\n - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then:\n\n a) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n b) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n c) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n d) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen\n Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become\n eligible to Judge that CFJ.\n\n e) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has\n happened upon a generational ship whose members are in\n suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try\n calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out.\n\n This Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002'),(405093,'rcs','00000001.00000074',1712,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1039369593,'Rule 1712/17 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is the number of\n registered Players, plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the Bank\n which have been auctioned off to Winning Bidders in prior\n Indulgence Auctions but not yet paid for. The Monthly Bank\n Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of Indulgences transferred\n from other entities to the Bank during a given Agoran Month,\n less the number of Indulgences transferred from the Bank to\n other entities during that same Agoran Month.\n\n As soon as possible after the start of each month, the Herald\n shall calculate the Indulgence Differential, which is equal to\n the IICL minus the AICL, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n To calculate the Indulgence Differential, the Herald shall\n determine the number of Blots and the number of Indulgences\n owned as published in the most recent Herald\'s Report; other\n values in the formula shall be determined as of the time of the\n calculation.\n\n If the Indulgence Differential is greater than zero, then the\n Herald shall, as soon as possible after the start of that month,\n auction a number of Indulgences equal to the Indulgence\n Differential; if the Indulgence Differential is not greater than\n zero, the Herald shall auction a whole number of Indulgences\n equal to or less than one half the MBIG for the preceeding\n month, with a minimum of 0 Indulgences.\n\n In an Indulgence Auction held in accordance with this rule, the\n items to be auctioned are individual Indulgences, and thus the\n number of items is equal to the number of Indulgences to be\n Auctioned. The Auction shall be conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002'),(405094,'rcs','00000001.00000075',1042,'Amneded(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1041167155,'Rule 1042/19 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never\n more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts\n to a public forum, that player is noisy.\n\n (b) A player who has not quietened another active, noisy player\n in the past 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player\n to become quiet by publically identifying the player and\n stating that e causes that player to become quiet.\n\n (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned\n the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if\n the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmneded(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002'),(405095,'rcs','00000001.00000075',698,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1041167155,'Rule 698/11 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given CFJ, unless\n a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players\n are ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge\n that CFJ.\n (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active barred players, other than the caller emself,\n become eligible to judge that CFJ.\n (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in\n serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is\n to panic, and run screaming for the hills.\n\n (c) This Rule takes precedence over other Rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002'),(405096,'rcs','00000001.00000075',1712,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4423 (Murphy), 16 December 2002','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1041167155,'Rule 1712/18 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n (a) The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is equal to\n the number of Players plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n (b) The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the\n Bank which either:\n\n (1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in prior\n Indulgence Auctions that have not yet concluded; or\n (2) have been auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that\n have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning\n Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or\n (3) have been Auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that\n have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning\n Bids have been paid, but the Indulgences have not been\n transferred to the Winning Bidders.\n\n (c) The Indulgence Surplus is the difference between the IICL\n and the AICL; if the AICL is greater than the IICL, the\n Indulgence Surplus is zero.\n\n (d) If the Indulgence Surplus is positive at the beginning of\n the month, the Herald shall as soon as possible auction off\n the surplus Indulgences. The items to be auctioned are\n individual Indulgences; the number of items is equal to the\n Indulgence Surplus, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be\n conducted in Stems.\n\n (e) The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of\n Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank\n during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences\n transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same\n Nomic Month.\n\n (f) If the Indulgence Surplus is zero or negative at the\n beginning of the month, the Herald may still conduct an\n Indulgence auction, but only if e initiates it within one\n week after the beginning of the month. The items to be\n auctioned are individual Indulgences; the number of items is\n chosen by the Herald, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of\n half the MBIG, rounded down to the nearest integer. The\n Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be\n conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4423 (Murphy), 16 December 2002'),(405097,'rcs','00000001.00000076',1996,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4425 (SirToby), 2 January 2003','The Mapkeepor','The Mapkeepor',1042443282,'Rule 1996/3 (Power=1)\nThe Mapkeepor\n\n The Mapkeepor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the\n Land of Arcadia.\n\n The Mapkeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (i) the ownership and land type of all existing land;\n (ii) all changes in the ownership and land type of existing\n land since the most recent report; and\n (iii) the location for the previous week and the current week of\n each entity or instrument with a defined non-secret\n location.\n (iv) The number of action units available to each entity for\n the current week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4425 (SirToby), 2 January 2003'),(405098,'rcs','00000001.00000076',2003,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4425 (SirToby), 2 January 2003','Actions in Arcadia','Actions in Arcadia',1042443282,'Rule 2003/8 (Power=1)\nActions in Arcadia\n\n Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to\n perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,\n\n - If the entity is a Player, 10, minus 1 for every 5 Blots in\n the Player\'s Stain as recorded in the most recent Herald\'s\n report before the week started, plus 1 for every unit of Land\n with Gote owned by the Player.\n\n - If the entity is a Group, 1, plus 3 for every Member of the\n Group located on or adjacent to the location of the Group at\n the start of the week, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote\n owned by the Group.\n\n - All other entities zero.\n\n Action Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one\n week to the next.\n\n An entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in\n Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act.\n So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single\n week.\n\n When an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type\n chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous\n alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land\n Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible\n after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies\n an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Type was used for that act.\n\n Players may expend:\n\n * 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not\n Aether.\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;\n\n Groups may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the\n location of one of its Members.\n\n Any entity may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to\n any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located\n at that Land Unit.\n\n * 5 Movement Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit\n that is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type\n Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating\n Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination.\n This movement has no effect if there are no qualifying Land\n Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the\n Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Unit, if any, is changed by this movement. The change occurs\n at the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor\n declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.\n\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current\n location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if\n and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n\n * 10 Movement Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that\n is of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.\n\n Unless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions\n and moves in Arcadia are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4425 (SirToby), 2 January 2003'),(405099,'rcs','00000001.00000077',869,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003','Registered Players','Registered Players',1043040741,'Rule 869/12 (Power=1)\nRegistered Players\n\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A\n Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player\n is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003'),(405100,'rcs','00000001.00000077',1647,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4429 (The Goddess Eris), 16 January 2003','The Speaker-Elect','The Speaker-Elect',1043040741,'Rule 1647/10 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker-Elect\n\n The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the\n Speaker\'s successor.\n\n Whenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be\n Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of\n Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of\n Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that\n Office.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar cannot be Nominated for\n the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the\n Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the\n Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as\n defined by other Rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the\n characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2681, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4246 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4429 (The Goddess Eris), 16 January 2003'),(405101,'rcs','00000001.00000077',2003,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4431 (Peekee), 16 January 2003','Actions in Arcadia','Actions in Arcadia',1043040741,'Rule 2003/9 (Power=1)\nActions in Arcadia\n\n Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to\n perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,\n\n - If the entity is a Player, 10, minus 1 for every 5 Blots in\n the Player\'s Stain as recorded in the most recent Herald\'s\n report before the week started, plus 1 for every unit of Land\n with Gote owned by the Player.\n\n - If the entity is a Group, 1, plus 3 for every Member of the\n Group located on or adjacent to the location of the Group at\n the start of the week, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote\n owned by the Group.\n\n - All other entities zero.\n\n Action Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one\n week to the next.\n\n An entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in\n Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act.\n So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single\n week.\n\n When an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type\n chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous\n alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land\n Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible\n after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies\n an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Type was used for that act.\n\n Players may expend:\n\n * 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not\n Aether.\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;\n\n Groups may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the\n location of one of its Members.\n\n Any entity may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to\n any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located\n at that Land Unit.\n\n * 5 Action Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that\n is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type\n Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating\n Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination.\n This action has no effect if there are no qualifying Land\n Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the\n Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Unit, if any, is changed by this action. The change occurs at\n the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor\n declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.\n\n * 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current\n location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if\n and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n\n * 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is\n of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.\n\n Unless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions\n and moves in Arcadia are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4425 (SirToby), 2 January 2003\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4431 (Peekee), 16 January 2003'),(405102,'rcs','00000001.00000078',559,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003','The Registrar','The Registrar',1044249849,'Rule 559/21 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003'),(405103,'rcs','00000001.00000078',514,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003','Keep the Registrar Informed of Your Address','Keep the Registrar Informed of Your Address',1044249849,'Rule 514/2 (Power=1)\nKeep the Registrar Informed of Your Address\n\n Each Player may list or unlist an e-mail address by informing\n the Registrar that e is doing so. When a Player registers, the\n address used to send eir registration becomes listed.\n\n A listing is only valid if the Player sends a public message\n from the listed address within one week of the listing. (This\n message may be the listing itself.) An unlisting is only valid\n if the Player keeps at least one address listed.\n\n If a Player fails to notify the Registrar of a change of\n address, then the Registrar is not responsible for any e-mail\n that fails to reach that Player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 514 (Wes), Oct. 5 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 5 1996, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003'),(405104,'rcs','00000001.00000078',2037,'Created by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003','Orange Alert','Orange Alert',1044249849,'Rule 2037/0 (Power=1)\nOrange Alert\n\n If a Player has no listed e-mail address, then the address used\n to send eir next public message becomes listed.\n\n If each Player has at least one listed address, then the\n Registrar may repeal this Rule by announcing that e does so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003'),(405105,'rcs','00000001.00000078',1987,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4436 (RedKnight), 28 January 2003','Classes of Organizations','Classes of Organizations',1044249849,'Rule 1987/1 (Power=1)\nClasses of Organizations\n\n The following Classes of Organizations exist:\n\n a) Groups.\n b) Contests.\n c) Monasteries\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4436 (RedKnight), 28 January 2003'),(405106,'rcs','00000001.00000078',2038,'Created by Proposal 4436 (RedKnight), 28 January 2003','Joining a Monastery','Joining a Monastery',1044249849,'Rule 2038/0 (Power=1)\nJoining a Monastery\n\n A Player shall be added to the Membership of a Monastery only\n when the Player to be added has sent the Administrator of the\n Monastery in question a message requesting the be added to the\n membership of that Monastery and the addition of that Player to\n that Monastery\'s membership is otherwise permitted by that\n Monastery\'s SLC.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4436 (RedKnight), 28 January 2003'),(405107,'rcs','00000001.00000078',2003,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4434 (SirToby), 28 January 2003','Actions in Arcadia','Actions in Arcadia',1044249849,'Rule 2003/10 (Power=1)\nActions in Arcadia\n\n Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to\n perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,\n\n - If the entity is a Player, 10, minus 1 for every 5 Blots in\n the Player\'s Stain as recorded in the most recent Herald\'s\n report before the week started, plus 1 for every unit of Land\n with Gote owned by the Player at the start of the week.\n\n - If the entity is a Group, 1, plus 3 for every Member of the\n Group located on or adjacent to the location of the Group at\n the start of the week, plus 1 for every unit of Land with Gote\n owned by the Group at the start of the week.\n\n - All other entities zero.\n\n Action Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one\n week to the next.\n\n An entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in\n Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act.\n So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single\n week.\n\n When an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type\n chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous\n alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land\n Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible\n after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies\n an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Type was used for that act.\n\n Players may expend:\n\n * 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not\n Aether.\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;\n\n Groups may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from its current location to the\n location of one of its Members.\n\n Any entity may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to\n any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located\n at that Land Unit.\n\n * 5 Action Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that\n is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type\n Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating\n Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination.\n This action has no effect if there are no qualifying Land\n Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the\n Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Unit, if any, is changed by this action. The change occurs at\n the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor\n declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.\n\n * 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current\n location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if\n and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n\n * 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is\n of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.\n\n Unless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions\n and moves in Arcadia are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4425 (SirToby), 2 January 2003\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4431 (Peekee), 16 January 2003\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4434 (SirToby), 28 January 2003'),(405108,'rcs','00000001.00000079',2039,'Created by Proposal 4440 (Steve), 3 February 2003','Ought implies can','Ought implies can',1044871293,'Rule 2039/0 (Power=3)\nOught implies can\n\n Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the failure to\n perform an action required by the Rules, where the person\n required to act was not empowered to do so, shall never\n constitute the commission of a Crime or Infraction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4440 (Steve), 3 February 2003'),(405109,'rcs','00000001.00000080',2040,'Created by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003','Switches','Switches',1046072274,'Rule 2040/0 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A switch is a set of states associated with a class of entities.\n Each switch shall have a default state, which if not otherwise\n specified shall be the first state mentioned in the rule\n defining the switch.\n\n The recordkeepor for a class of entities shall also maintain\n records of any switches associated with that class, as well as\n for each entity of the class the current state of the switch.\n If the recordkeepor is required to publish a report, that report\n shall include records of these switches.\n\n Whenever an entity is created in a class of entities associated\n with a switch, it shall be in the state of the switch specified\n by the order or provision creating it; if no state is specified,\n it shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever an entity joins a class of entities associated with a\n switch, the entity shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n A player who may flip a switch on an entity to some state may do\n so by announcement. In eir announcement, e must indicate the\n entity, switch, and new state. When a switch on an entity is\n flipped to some state, the entity shall come to be in that state\n and simultaneously cease to be in any other state of the switch.\n\n Viscosity is a stuck switch for switches with values loose and\n stuck.\n\n An executor of an entity may flip any of the loose switches on\n that entity, unless the rules otherwise prohibit doing so.\n\n The stuck switches on an entity can be flipped only when the\n rules so indicate.\n\n Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class\n of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously\n been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue\n to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in\n the default state of the switch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003'),(405110,'rcs','00000001.00000080',478,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003','Fora','Fora',1046072274,'Rule 478/13 (Power=1)\nFora\n\n Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion,\n and Public.\n\n The Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of a\n forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on\n this action, the Registrar\'s announcement of intent must be sent\n to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the\n announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification\n must be sent to all existing Public fora.\n\n It is the responsibility of each active player to ensure that e\n can receive messages via each Public forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or\n Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to\n allow players to receive messages via that medium. The\n Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state.\n\n A message is not public unless some rule states that it is\n public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum,\n or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and\n contains a clear designation of intent to be public.\n\n A player publishes information by publicly sending a message\n containing that information, and announces something by\n publishing it.\n\n If the rules state that a player may perform an action by\n announcement, then that player may perform that action by\n announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a player\n may perform an action by private message to some player, then\n that player may perform that action by sending a message\n privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it.\n In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the\n action to be performed.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.\n CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.\n CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.\n CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: \"In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003'),(405111,'rcs','00000001.00000080',869,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003','Registered Players','Registered Players',1046072274,'Rule 869/13 (Power=1)\nRegistered Players\n\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A\n Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player\n is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period\n shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which\n elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that\n Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by\n reason of that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003'),(405112,'rcs','00000001.00000080',1449,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','The Assessor','The Assessor',1046072274,'Rule 1449/15 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting\n Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the\n results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the\n identity and voting power for Proposals in each Chamber, for all\nn entities with nonzero voting power in at least one Chamber.\n\n (c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting\n Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1\n between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(405113,'rcs','00000001.00000080',2023,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4452 (Sir Toby), 22 February 2003','Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar','Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar',1046072274,'Rule 2023/1 (Power=2)\nSubmitting a CFJ to the Justiciar\n\n A CFJ may be submitted to the Justiciar. For such a CFJ, the\n Justiciar shall perform all duties and fulfill all roles that\n would otherwise be assigned to the Clerk of the Courts. This\n takes precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties\n and roles regarding a CFJ to the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n All persons are encouraged to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar only\n when there is a good reason not to submit it to the Clerk of the\n Courts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4452 (Sir Toby), 22 Feb. 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4452 (Sir Toby), 22 February 2003'),(405114,'rcs','00000001.00000080',2012,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4446 (Steve), 22 February 2003','Single-Bid Auctions','Single-Bid Auctions',1046072274,'Rule 2012/2 (Power=1)\nSingle-Bid Auctions\n\n There is a type of auction called a single-bid auction. The\n procedure for conducting a single-bid auction is the same as\n that used in the default auction procedure, with the following\n additions and exceptions:\n\n (a) Bid inflation factor: As part of any correct and legal\n announcement that a single-bid auction is commencing, the\n Auctioneer must announce the value of the bid inflation\n factor for the auction, a real number between 0 and 1\n inclusive.\n\n (b) Making bids: each player eligible to bid in the auction is\n permitted to make only one bid, called the initial bid. Any\n bids made by a player after eir initial bid in the auction\n are invalid. A player who cancels eir bid is ineligible to\n make further bids in the auction. All bids must be made\n publically.\n\n (c) Value of bids: at each midnight GMT during the auction, the\n value of each valid, uncancelled bid remaining in the\n auction is increased by an amount equal to the bid inflation\n factor multiplied by the initial bid.\n\n (d) End of auction: the auction ends if any of the following\n occur:\n\n (1) one week has passed from the start of the auction, and\n no bids have been made; or\n\n (2) a bid has been made in the auction, and there has been\n no change in the N highest initial bids for 72 hours; or\n\n (3) fourteen days have passed since the Auction began.\n\n (e) Final auction price: for the purposes of determining the\n winner(s) of the auction, the value of each bid as\n calculated in (c) above is used. However, the debt incurred\n by a winner of the auction is equal to the Nth highest\n winning initial bid, where N is the number of items being\n auctioned, or to the starting bid, if there were fewer than\n N bids.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4251 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4321 (Steve), 31 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4446 (Steve), 22 February 2003'),(405115,'rcs','00000001.00000081',1803,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Judicial and Sentencing Orders','Judicial and Sentencing Orders',1047266118,'Rule 1803/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial and Sentencing Orders\n\n Judicial Orders and Sentencing Orders are executed by being sent\n to the Clerk of the Courts, but do not take effect until their\n publication by the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts\n shall publish each Judicial Order and Sentencing Order as soon\n as possible after receiving it from the Judge who executed it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405116,'rcs','00000001.00000081',1812,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002','Notices of Infraction','Notices of Infraction',1047266118,'Rule 1812/6 (Power=1)\nNotices of Infraction\n\n If an entity (hereafter the Jaywalker) commits an Infraction,\n then any Player authorized by the Rules to report the commission\n of that Infraction (hereafter the Traffic Cop) may publish a\n Notice of Infraction. This Notice shall explicitly specify the\n following:\n\n a) The Infraction that has been committed.\n b) The identity of the Jaywalker.\n c) The Rule(s) defining that action or inaction as an\n Infraction.\n d) The action or inaction by which the Jaywalker committed the\n Infraction.\n e) All and only those Ticketing Orders necessary and\n sufficient to impose the penalty for that Infraction. The\n Orders are executed and take effect upon publication.\n\n When a Player publishes a Claim of Error alleging that the\n Jaywalker did not commit the Infraction, e may (in the same\n message as the COE) stay one or more of the Ticketing Orders.\n If the COE is denied, then the Traffic Cop shall vacate the\n Order to Stay as soon as possible. If the COE is admitted, then\n the Traffic Cop shall vacate all the stayed Ticketing Orders as\n soon as possible.\n\n Players are encouraged to CFJ on the commission of Infractions\n only when a question of interpretation, rather than of fact,\n arises.\n\n[CFJ 1391: Only one valid Notice of Infraction may be announced for a\n single given commission of an Infraction.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3934 (Wes), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4369 (RedKnight), 29 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002'),(405117,'rcs','00000001.00000081',1470,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002','The Bank','The Bank',1047266118,'Rule 1470/7 (Power=2)\nThe Bank\n\n (a) There is an entity known as the Bank. The Bank has Mint\n Authority. The Bank is the Mintor of each Bank Currency.\n The Bank may transfer Property in its possession to other\n entities only to satisfy its debts.\n\n (b) The Treasuror is the Executor of the Bank. Each\n Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is a Limited Executor of\n the Bank, and is empowered to make transfers of that\n Currency from the Bank.\n\n (c) Each Recordkeepor of each Bank Currency is the Prime\n Executor of the Bank with respect to debts denominated in\n that Currency. The Treasuror is the Prime Executor of the\n Bank with respect to all other actions that the Bank is\n required to perform.\n\n (d) As soon as possible after the Bank incurs a debt to any\n other entity, the Bank shall either satisfy that debt by\n transferring appropriate Properties to the creditor, or\n dispute the debt by whatever means are appropriate in the\n situation.\n\n (e) The Bank is permitted to forgive debts owed to it, in whole\n or in part:\n (1) pursuant to a properly-issued Order; or\n (2) Without Objection, at the Treasuror\'s discretion.\n\n[CFJ 1437: Where the Bank has been properly ordered to forgive a debt\n denominated in a Bank Currency, only the Treasuror is both permitted\n and required to act on the Bank\'s behalf to forgive the debt.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2470, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4156 (Ian), 18 May 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4322 (t), 31 May 2002'),(405118,'rcs','00000001.00000082',1449,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002','The Assessor','The Assessor',1047615440,'Rule 1449/15 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor of Voting\n Entitlements and is responsible for receiving and announcing the\n results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the\n identity and voting power for Proposals in each Chamber, for all\n entities with nonzero voting power in at least one Chamber.\n\n (c) The Assessor\'s Budget shall consist of the Voting\n Entitlements per Player (VEPP), a real multiple of 0.1\n between 0.5 and 2.0 inclusive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002'),(405119,'rcs','00000001.00000083',1963,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1048051265,'Rule 1963/4 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect;\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; or\n (6) e is an Oligarch, and e has defaulted on payment of eir\n Oligarchy Upkeep since last becoming an Oligarch.\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as\n possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by\n correctly announcing that at least one of the above\n conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases\n to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003'),(405120,'rcs','00000001.00000084',1893,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','The Treasuror\'s Budget','The Treasuror\'s Budget',1048052805,'Rule 1893/14 (Power=1)\nThe Treasuror\'s Budget\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall contain the Basic Officer Salary\n (BOS), an amount between 0 and 40 Stems inclusive.\n Additionally, the Budget shall contain the values all of the\n following compensations:\n\n (i) the Minimum Income;\n (ii) the Judicial Salary;\n (iii) the Distributor\'s Gratuity;\n (iv) the Speaker\'s Gratuity; and\n (v) for each wage-earning Office, the Salary of that Office.\n\n A compensation shall be not less than 0 nor more than 4, and\n must be an integral multiple of 0.1. The arithmetic mean of all\n compensations shall be no greater than 2.\n\n Whenever the Rules indicate that one of the above compensations\n is to be paid out, the amount to be paid out shall be the\n product of the value of the compensation and the value of the\n BOS (as set in the latest Budget).\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain a schedule that, for\n each Bank Currency, shall indicate the amount of the New Player\n Award for that Currency. The amount of the New Player Award for\n a Bank Currency shall not be less than the Minimum Unit Quantity\n of that Currency.\n\n The Treasuror\'s Budget shall also contain the Foul Weather\n Factor and the Weather Intensity Factor. Both are numbers\n between 0 and 10 inclusive that are evenly divisible by 0.1.\n\n While holding the Office as Electee, the Treasuror may amend eir\n Budget, With Support.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3924 (Wes), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3944 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3955 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3982 (Sherlock), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3996 (lee), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4383 (Sir Toby), 11 September 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405121,'rcs','00000001.00000084',1922,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1048052805,'Rule 1922/5 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405122,'rcs','00000001.00000084',1910,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Stems','Stems',1048052805,'Rule 1910/7 (Power=1)\nStems\n\n Stems are a Bank Currency. The MUQ of Stems is 1. The\n Recordkeepor for Stems is the Payroll Clerk.\n\n Transfers of Stems are permitted only if at least one of the\n following is true:\n\n (1) either the transferor or the transferee is the Bank;\n (2) the Stems are to be transferred from a Dissolute to a player\n who has the privilege of Looting the Corpse of that\n Dissolute;\n (3) either the transferor or the transferee is a Money Grubbing\n Contest, and the regulations of the Contest(s) involved in\n the transfer specifically permit the transfer.\n\n All other transfers of Stems are prohibited.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4337 (Sir Toby), 30 June 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405123,'rcs','00000001.00000084',1928,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','The Scorekeepor','The Scorekeepor',1048052805,'Rule 1928/4 (Power=1)\nThe Scorekeepor\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of scores and Teams.\n\n The Scorekeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include the score of each\n registered Player and all Team Scores as well as any changes to\n either since the last posting of the Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405124,'rcs','00000001.00000084',1929,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Points','Points',1048052805,'Rule 1929/5 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness,\n measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an\n integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since\n the last Team Win has a Score of zero Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)\n or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said\n event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the\n Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in\n the affected Player\'s Score.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first such notification for that specific\n event\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Propsoal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4180 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405125,'rcs','00000001.00000084',1962,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Immaculate Players','Immaculate Players',1048052805,'Rule 1962/4 (Power=1)\nImmaculate Players\n\n An Immaculate Player is a Player whose Stain is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4102 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4375 (RedKnight), 6 September 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405126,'rcs','00000001.00000084',1987,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Classes of Organizations','Classes of Organizations',1048052805,'Rule 1987/2 (Power=1)\nClasses of Organizations\n\n The following Classes of Organizations exist:\n\n a) Contests.\n b) Monasteries\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4436 (RedKnight), 28 January 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405127,'rcs','00000001.00000084',2041,'Created by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Teams','Teams',1048052805,'Rule 2041/0 (Power=1)\nTeams\n\n All Players are grouped into units known as Teams. No Player\n may belong to more than one Team at any time.\n\n Each Team shall have a Team Name by which it is known. A Player\n in a Team may change that Team\'s Team Name with the Support of\n two other Players in the same Team.\n\n A Team Score is at all times an integer. The Team Score of a\n Team is the total sum of all Points of all Players grouped into\n that Team.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405128,'rcs','00000001.00000084',2042,'Created by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Team Wins','Team Wins',1048052805,'Rule 2042/0 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\n A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches 400.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win\n as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. The\n Scorekeepor shall then pay out 25 Stems to each Player in the\n winning Team.\n\n Upon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set\n to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405129,'rcs','00000001.00000084',2043,'Created by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','New Player Team Assignment','New Player Team Assignment',1048052805,'Rule 2043/0 (Power=1)\nNew Player Team Assignment\n\n As soon as possible after a Player registers, the Scorekeepor\n shall assign em to a Team and publicly announce the assignment.\n The Scorekeepor shall make the assignment so as to distribute\n the players as evenly as possible among the teams. If more than\n one assignment would achieve this, the Scorekeepor may choose\n among them.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405130,'rcs','00000001.00000084',2003,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Actions in Arcadia','Actions in Arcadia',1048052805,'Rule 2003/11 (Power=1)\nActions in Arcadia\n\n Every week, the number of Actions Units an entity may expend to\n perform actions in the Land of Arcadia is as follows,\n\n - If the entity is a Player, 10, minus 1 for every 5 Blots in\n the Player\'s Stain as recorded in the most recent Herald\'s\n report before the week started, plus 1 for every unit of Land\n with Gote owned by the Player at the start of the week.\n\n - All other entities zero.\n\n Action Units are not transferable, and do not persist from one\n week to the next.\n\n An entity may expend Action Units to carry out an action in\n Arcadia by notifying the Mapkeepor of the specifics of the act.\n So long as e does not spend more than eir allotted number of\n Action Units, e may make as many actions e wishes in a single\n week.\n\n When an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type\n chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous\n alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land\n Types alternate between Black and White. As soon as possible\n after a Player notifies the Mapkeepor of an act that specifies\n an alternating Land Type, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Type was used for that act.\n\n Players may expend:\n\n * 2 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types are the same and the destination is not\n Aether.\n\n * 5 Action Units to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit\n if their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether;\n\n Any entity may expend:\n\n * 5 Action Units to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to\n any Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located\n at that Land Unit.\n\n * 5 Action Units to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit that\n is adjacent to the Entity\'s current location, is of type\n Aether, and is owned by the Land Bureau, to an alternating\n Land Type. The Mapkeepor will make the random determination.\n This action has no effect if there are no qualifying Land\n Units. As soon as possible after a Player notifies the\n Mapkeepor of this move, the Mapkeepor must announce which Land\n Unit, if any, is changed by this action. The change occurs at\n the time of the first legal announcement from the Mapkeepor\n declaring which Land Unit\'s Land Type has changed.\n\n * 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of the Entity\'s current\n location to any Land Type of eir choice other than Aether, if\n and only if the Unit is owned by the Land Bureau.\n\n * 10 Action Units to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is\n of type Aether to an alternating Land Type.\n\n Unless explicitly permitted by other Rules, all other actions\n and moves in Arcadia are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4207 (neil), 3 September 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4215 (neil), 29 September 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4229 (Goethe), 22 November 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4280 (OscarMeyr), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4293 (Sir Toby), 10 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4373 (Sir Toby), 6 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4405 (Peekee), 23 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4425 (SirToby), 2 January 2003\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4431 (Peekee), 16 January 2003\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4434 (SirToby), 28 January 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405131,'rcs','00000001.00000084',2022,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Sente and Gote','Sente and Gote',1048052805,'Rule 2022/5 (Power=1)\nSente and Gote\n\n On the fifteenth of each Agoran Month, the following actions\n occur in sequence, and these changes must be reported by the\n Mapkeepor as soon as possible after they occur:\n\n (i) Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0), that is not directly\n connected to a unit of Aether, and is not connected by\n its own type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to\n Aether.\n\n (ii) Any entities whose locations are on land units so\n transformed shall have their locations set to 0,0.\n\n (iii) If any land unit so transformed is not property of the\n Land Bureau, it becomes property of the Land Bureau.\n\n (iv) If there are more Land Units of a single defined Land\n Type, Aether excepted, then there are of all other Land\n Types combined (other than Aether), then all Land Units\n of that majority Type are said to have Sente. Land Units\n of all other defined Types are said to have Gote.\n\n (v) the Mapkeepor shall Pay Out:\n (a) an amount of Stems equal to the Minimum Income times\n the Basic Officer\'s Salary to all Players whose\n location has Sente;\n (b) to the owner of any Land Unit that has Sente and is\n not owned by the Bank or the Land Bureau:\n * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5\n Land Units with Sente that e owns;\n\n Sente and Gote shall only be changed as defined by this Rule, on\n the fifteenth of each Agoran Month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4308 (Sir Toby), 28 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4386 (Peekee), 25 September 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405132,'rcs','00000001.00000085',1728,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1048053516,'Rule 1728/11 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and\n only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N\n Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase\n \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1 Objection\",\n and the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\".\n\n A player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an\n unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform\n a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and\n only if:\n\n (a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the\n announcement of intent to perform the action;\n\n (b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N\n Objections, at least four days have passed since the\n announcement made under (a) of this rule;\n\n (c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or\n\n (1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by\n virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and\n\n (2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n holder of that position when e attempts to perform the\n action;\n\n (d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the\n action dependently;\n\n (e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of\n this rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections,\n fewer than N players have publicly posted objections\n to the performance of the action; or\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at\n least N players other than the player who made the\n announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly\n posted support for the performance of the action;\n\n (f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies\n whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections\n or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit\n the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not\n permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (g) e announces that e performs the described action.\n\n A dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).\n\n A player who posts an objection to the performance of an action\n may publicly retract eir objection. If e does so, e shall be\n deemed not have posted an objection to the performance of that\n action for the purposes of (e)(1) of this rule.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n A rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may\n restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that\n specific action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003'),(405133,'rcs','00000001.00000085',1370,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003','How to Get a Degree','How to Get a Degree',1048053516,'Rule 1370/13 (Power=1)\nHow to Get a Degree\n\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis Draft, authored by emself, along with a statement\n explicitly indicating that the Thesis Draft is being submitted\n with the intent to qualify for a particular degree.\n\n If the Candidate is a Player, e may choose another Player to be\n the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with\n the Chair\'s consent. For non-players, or if no other Player\n consents to be the Chair within one month of draft submission,\n the Speaker will serve as Chair.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the\n Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the\n Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the\n Justiciar shall so appoint, unless the Chair or the Candidate is\n the Justiciar, in which case the Clerk of the Courts shall so\n appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual\n consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third\n Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Candidate may\n publish a new Thesis Draft at any time, in response to Committee\n requests or of eir own choosing, by indicating it is a new Thesis\n Draft for the same Degree.\n\n If the Committee is dissolved without granting a degree, the\n Committee ceases to be a Committee, and the Candidate ceases to\n be a Candidate, and any existant Thesis Draft must be republished\n and subject to a new Committee selection to be eligible for a\n Degree.\n\n The Chair of a Thesis Committee may dissolve the Committee\n without granting a degree, with the consent of at least one other\n Committee member. To so dissolve, the Chair must publish a\n notice of intent to dissolve at least 14 days before dissolving.\n The Candidate may so dissolve the Committee at any time by public\n announcement.\n\n The Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may\n award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n most recent Thesis draft produced by the Candidate is worthy\n of the Degree to be granted; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may have up to 14 days after a Degree is\n awarded to publish a Commentary for the Thesis. After that\n time, the Chair shall publish the most recent Thesis Draft along\n with all Commentary so published. This combined publication\n shall become the Final Thesis. Upon publication of this Final\n Thesis the Committee members cease to be Committee members for\n that Thesis.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Final Thesis.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1370, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1508, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2487, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2682, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2715, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4303 (OscarMeyr), 17 May 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003'),(405134,'rcs','00000001.00000085',2044,'Created by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003','Awardable Degrees','Awardable Degrees',1048053516,'Rule 2044/0 (Power=1)\nAwardable Degrees\n\n The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives\n a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 500 words. A Candidate who already holds an BN Degree receives\n a credit of 250 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History requires a Thesis of at\n least 750 words and containing a narrative covering significant\n events which have occurred in Agora within the eight weeks prior\n to the publication of the Thesis.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 750\n words.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy requires a Thesis of at\n least 1000 words, and that the candidate has also published an\n additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme\n is related to Agora or Nomic in general.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003'),(405135,'rcs','00000001.00000085',1712,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4463 (Cecilius), 17 March 2003','Distribution of Indulgences','Distribution of Indulgences',1048053516,'Rule 1712/19 (Power=1)\nDistribution of Indulgences\n\n (a) The Ideal Indulgence Circulation Level (IICL) is equal to\n the number of Players plus the total Stain of all Players.\n\n (b) The Actual Indulgence Circulation Level (AICL) is the total\n number of Indulgences owned by entities other than the Bank,\n augmented by the total number of Indulgences owned by the\n Bank which either:\n\n (1) are already being Auctioned by the Bank in prior\n Indulgence Auctions that have not yet concluded; or\n (2) have been auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that\n have concluded, but where the debts arising from Winning\n Bids have neither been paid nor defaulted upon; or\n (3) have been Auctioned in prior Indulgence Auctions that\n have concluded, and the debts arising from the Winning\n Bids have been paid, but the Indulgences have not been\n transferred to the Winning Bidders.\n\n (c) The Indulgence Surplus is the difference between the IICL\n and the AICL; if the AICL is greater than the IICL, the\n Indulgence Surplus is zero.\n\n (d) If the Indulgence Surplus is positive at the beginning of\n the month, the Herald shall as soon as possible auction off\n the surplus Indulgences. The items to be auctioned are\n individual Indulgences; the number of items is equal to the\n Indulgence Surplus, rounded down to the nearest integer.\n The Auctioneer shall be the Herald, and the Auction shall be\n conducted in Stems.\n\n (e) The Monthly Bank Indulgence Gain (MBIG) is the number of\n Indulgences transferred from other entities to the Bank\n during a given Nomic Month, less the number of Indulgences\n transferred from the Bank to other entities during that same\n Nomic Month.\n\n (f) If the Indulgence Surplus is less than one at the beginning\n of the month, the Herald may still conduct an Indulgence\n auction, but only if e initiates it within one week after\n the beginning of the month. The items to be auctioned are\n individual Indulgences; the number of items is chosen by the\n Herald, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of half the MBIG,\n rounded down to the nearest integer. The Auctioneer shall be\n the Herald, and the Auction shall be conducted in Stems.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3618 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3714 (Crito), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3938 (Murphy), Nov. 7 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4074 (Elysion), Sep. 26 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4162 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4188 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4203 (neil), 28 August 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4423 (Murphy), 16 December 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4463 (Cecilius), 17 March 2003'),(405136,'rcs','00000001.00000086',1976,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4468 (Sherlock), 17 March 2003','Mentors\' Bonus','Mentors\' Bonus',1048061404,'Rule 1976/4 (Power=1)\nMentors\' Bonus\n\n In the four weeks immediately after eir Grace Period ends, a\n Player (hereafter, the \'Protege\') may award a Mentor\'s Bonus to\n each Player (hereafter, a \'Mentor\') e deems to have been helpful\n to em as a new Player.\n\n Each award is made by public announcement and must specify the\n Mentor\'s name and a number of Stems. Upon such an announcement\n the Bank shall incur a debt of that number of Stems to the named\n Mentor. The number of Stems a Protege may award in all of eir\n Mentor\'s Bonuses shall not exceed the number of Stems in the New\n Player Award.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4143 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4172 (root), 26 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4316 (Craig), 28 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4468 (Sherlock), 17 March 2003'),(405137,'rcs','00000001.00000086',594,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003','Power and Proposals','Power and Proposals',1048061404,'Rule 594/8 (Power=3)\nPower and Proposals\n\n No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as\n described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any\n entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be\n so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power\n greater than its own.\n\n When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to\n its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of\n the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by\n the Rules.\n\n Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are\n ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each\n provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal\n states otherwise.\n\n For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted\n Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties.\n\n[CFJ 778: It is legal for a Proposal to contain zero Rule Changes.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 594 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26 1997, substantial\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4328 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4349 (root), 20 July 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003'),(405138,'rcs','00000001.00000086',2045,'Created by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003','Adoption Indices','Adoption Indices',1048061404,'Rule 2045/0 (Power=3)\nAdoption Indices\n\n 1) The Default Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of:\n\n a) 1; and\n\n b) any minimum values required for that Proposal by the\n Rules.\n\n 2) The Proposer of a Proposal may, at the time when e submits\n the Proposal or at any time while it is in the Pool, request\n an Adoption Index for that Proposal by announcement,\n specifying the requested value.\n\n 3) When a Proposal is distributed, its Adoption Index is set to\n the maximum of:\n\n a) its Default Adoption Index; and\n\n b) any values requested by its Proposer as permitted in 2).\n\n\n 4) This is the only mechanism for setting or changing the\n Adoption Index of a Proposal. This Rule takes precedence\n over Rules that would allow other mechanisms for setting or\n changing the Adoption Index of a Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003'),(405139,'rcs','00000001.00000086',1929,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4467 (OscarMyer), 17 March 2003','Points','Points',1048061404,'Rule 1929/6 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness,\n measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an\n integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since\n the last Team Win has a Score of zero Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)\n or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said\n event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the\n Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in\n the affected Player\'s Score.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific\n event\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Propsoal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4180 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4467 (OscarMyer), 17 March 2003'),(405140,'rcs','00000001.00000087',2045,'Created by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003','Adoption Indices','Adoption Indices',1048061527,'Rule 2045/0 (Power=3)\nAdoption Indices\n\n 1) The Default Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of:\n\n a) 1; and\n\n b) any minimum values required for that Proposal by the\n Rules.\n\n 2) The Proposer of a Proposal may, at the time when e submits\n the Proposal or at any time while it is in the Pool, request\n an Adoption Index for that Proposal by announcement,\n specifying the requested value.\n\n 3) When a Proposal is distributed, its Adoption Index is set to\n the maximum of:\n\n a) its Default Adoption Index; and\n\n b) any values requested by its Proposer as permitted in 2).\n\n 4) This is the only mechanism for setting or changing the\n Adoption Index of a Proposal. This Rule takes precedence\n over Rules that would allow other mechanisms for setting or\n changing the Adoption Index of a Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003'),(405141,'rcs','00000001.00000088',1853,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4470 (Steve), 26 March 2003','Levying Taxes','Levying Taxes',1049268590,'Rule 1853/9 (Power=1)\nLevying Taxes\n\n (a) Taxes may be levied only by a person explicitly empowered by\n the rules to do so; each currency Recordkeepor is empowered\n to levy a tax on that currency, and is herein referred to as\n \"the taxing authority\".\n\n (b) The procedure for levying a tax may be summarized as\n follows: first, the taxing authority publically issues an\n announcement of intent to levy a tax; second, at a later\n point, the taxing authority publically issues a tax notice.\n\n (c) To be valid, both the notice of intent to levy a tax, and\n the tax notice itself, must specify the elements of the tax,\n viz., the currency being taxed, the tax rate expressed as a\n percentage of holdings (which may not exceed 50% unless the\n Rule authorizing the tax explicitly permits it), and any\n exemptions.\n\n (d) An exemption is specified as a percentage of the holdings of\n a taxable entity. It may be set at the discretion of the\n taxing authority, provided that:\n\n (1) all players are exempt identical amounts,\n (2) all non-players are exempt identical amounts, and\n (3) the non-players\' exemption is less than or equal to the\n players\' exemption.\n\n (e) A notice of intent to levy a tax may not validly be issued\n while another attempt to levy a tax in that currency is\n proceeding in accordance with this rule.\n\n (f) A tax notice may only validly be issued between seven and\n fourteen days after the publication of a valid notice of\n intent to levy a tax, and at least 30 days after the\n publication of the last valid tax notice (if there has been\n one).\n\n (g) A tax notice must also indicate the currency holdings of\n each taxable entity at the time of the publication of the\n notice of intent to levy a tax, and the tax debt incurred by\n each such entity.\n\n (h) The tax debt for each taxable entity is calculated on the\n basis of the entity\'s holdings at the time of the\n publication of the notice of intent to levy a tax. Any\n holdings exempt from the tax are exempted, and the tax is\n applied to the remainder at the specified tax rate.\n\n (i) Any error in the calculation of holdings or tax debts for a\n taxable entity does not invalidate the tax notice with\n respect to the other taxable entities mentioned in it.\n\n (j) Upon the publication of a valid tax notice, each taxable\n entity incurs a debt to the Bank equal to the tax debt for\n that entity.\n\n (k) All entities are taxable, except for:\n (1) the Bank,\n (2) rebellious players who were rebellious at the time the\n intent to levy was published, and\n (3) entities explicitly specified by the rule authorizing\n the levy as non-taxable for that levy.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3747 (Steve), May 22 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3790 (Steve), Oct. 6 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3857 (General Chaos), Apr. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4127 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4193 (Taral), 18 July 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4470 (Steve), 26 March 2003'),(405142,'rcs','00000001.00000088',1997,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4471 (OscarMyer), 26 March 2003','Defined Land Types and Subtypes','Defined Land Types and Subtypes',1049268590,'Rule 1997/2 (Power=1)\nDefined Land Types and Subtypes\n\n In addition to Aether, the following Land Types are defined:\n (a) Black;\n (b) White;\n (c) Purple.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4197 (Goethe), 8 August 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4283 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4471 (OscarMyer), 26 March 2003'),(405143,'rcs','00000001.00000088',2046,'Created by Proposal 4471 (OscarMyer), 26 March 2003','Q*Bert (tm)','Q*Bert (tm)',1049268590,'Rule 2046/0 (Power=1)\nQ*Bert (tm)\n\n Q*Bert (tm) is an entity in Arcadia. Q*Bert moves one space per\n week, according to the following procedure:\n\n Q*Bert moves one space in a random direction, but not to the\n space it last moved from. Q*Bert is permitted to move to an\n undefined destination or to Aether. If Q*Bert moves to an\n undefined destination, its location becomes undefined, and the\n next week it will move to (0,0).\n\n Normally, Q*Bert moves in a diagonal direction. If Q*Bert ends\n its diagonal movement at a location that another entity ends eir\n movement at for that week, then in the following week Q*Bert\n will say \"@!#?@!\" and move in a random orthogonal direction.\n\n Q*Bert has a color, which is a defined Land Type other than\n Aether and that does not have Sente. When Q*Bert moves to a\n space, it changes the Land Type of that space. If the current\n Type is not the same as Q*Bert\'s color, Q*Bert changes that\n space\'s type to its color. Otherwise, Q*Bert changes that\n space\'s type to the Land Type that currently has Sente.\n\n The Mapkeepor is a Limited Executor of Q*Bert, and its Prime\n Executor for its movement in Arcadia. The Mapkeepor is to make\n the random determination of Q*Bert\'s movement direction and\n publish Q*Bert\'s movement and its effect as soon as possible\n after the start of the Agoran week.\n\n Upon the Mapkeepor\'s report that Q*Bert\'s color has Sente,\n Q*Bert\'s color becomes a random Land Type other than Aether or\n the old color. The Mapkeepor will make this random\n determination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4471 (OscarMyer), 26 March 2003'),(405144,'rcs','00000001.00000089',1987,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003','Classes of Organizations','Classes of Organizations',1049711569,'Rule 1987/2 (Power=1)\nClasses of Organizations\n\n The following Classes of Organizations exist:\n\n a) Contests.\n b) Monasteries.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4436 (RedKnight), 28 January 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003'),(405145,'rcs','00000001.00000092',1445,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4480 (Steve), 23 April 2003','Defaults for Elections','Defaults for Elections',1051686345,'Rule 1445/17 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections\n\n When an Election is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the following Standard Election Procedure shall be\n used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be\n modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for taking\n nominations, collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing\n the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time\n the Election begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the winner of\n the Election, then the Election has no winner.\n\n * Nominator: A Nominator is an entity permitted to Nominate a\n Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Nominators.\n Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent.\n\n * Prospective: A Prospective is an entity permitted to be\n Nominated as a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players\n are Prospectives. Activity is measured at the time a\n Nomination is sent.\n\n * Nominating: A Nominator Nominates a Prospective by sending a\n message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period,\n indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the\n Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same\n as the Nominator.\n\n * Candidates: A Candidate for an Election is a Prospective who\n has been Nominated in that Election.\n\n * Retraction: A Nominator may retract eir Nomination by sending\n a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period,\n indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the\n Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same\n as the Nominator.\n\n * Declination: A Prospective may decline eir Nomination by\n sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating\n Period, indicating the Election. Upon doing so, e may not be\n re-Nominated in that Election by anyone but emself.\n\n * Mode of Nominations: There are three Modes of Nominations:\n Selfish, Selfless, or Open. The Vote Collector may specify a\n Mode of Nominations when e announces the start of the\n Election; if e does not, then the Mode is Selfish.\n\n (a) In a Selfish Election, a Nominator may Nominate only\n emself.\n (b) In a Selfless Election, a Nominator may not Nominate\n emself.\n (c) In an Open Election, a Nominator may Nominate any\n Prospective.\n\n * Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the time\n of the first correct and legal announcement that an Election\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one\n Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside\n of the Nominating Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.\n\n * End of Nominations: As soon as possible after the end of the\n Nominating Period, the Vote Collector shall publish a list of\n all Candidates. If e does not do this as soon as possible,\n then the Election has no winner.\n\n If there are no Candidates, then the Election has no winner.\n\n If there is exactly one Candidate, then e is the winner of that\n Election.\n\n If there are two or more Candidates, then a Referendum begins\n when the Vote Collector publishes the list of Candidates. This\n is a standard Referendum, with the following exceptions:\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the\n same as the Vote Collector for the Election.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is the name of exactly one Candidate for\n the given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous\n with these are also permissible.\n\n * Failure of Referendum: If the Referendum fails for any reason\n (e.g. Quorum is not achieved), then the Election has no\n winner.\n\n * Adoption: The winner of the Election is the Candidate for whom\n the most Votes were cast. If two or more Candidates are tied\n for most Votes, then the Speaker shall choose one of those\n Candidates, who becomes the winner when the Speaker announces\n eir choice. The Speaker shall announce eir choice as soon as\n possible after the Vote Collector announces the results of\n Voting.\n\n * Effectiveness: An Election takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces the identity of its winner. The\n effect of an Election is defined by other Rules.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of an Election are not\n challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector\n announces them, then the announced results are the true\n results of that Election, even if they would otherwise be in\n error.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1499 (Blob), Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2578, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2600, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2808 (Murphy), Feb. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3564 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3616 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3836 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4017 (Elysion), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4031 (Elysion), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4480 (Steve), 23 April 2003'),(405146,'rcs','00000001.00000092',1958,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4480 (Steve), 23 April 2003','Nominating with Budgets','Nominating with Budgets',1051686345,'Rule 1958/1 (Power=1)\nNominating with Budgets\n\n (a) If an office has a budget, then a nomination in an election\n for that office is not valid unless a valid proto-budget is\n associated with it.\n\n (b) A proto-budget submitted by a nominee during the nominating\n period is associated with that nominee\'s nomination. A\n proto-budget is valid if it would be valid as a budget.\n\n (c) If a nominee for an Office fails to submit a valid\n proto-budget during the nominating period, then by default\n eir nomination is associated with a proto-budget identical\n to the current budget for that Office. If the current\n budget is not valid, tough cookies.\n\n (d) When the voting period begins, the vote collector shall\n announce each candidate\'s last valid proto-budget.\n\n (e) When the voting period ends, the winner\'s last valid\n proto-budget becomes the budget of that office, and e shall\n announce it as soon as possible. If the election ends\n without a winner, then the existing Budget remains in\n effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4480 (Steve), 23 April 2003'),(405147,'rcs','00000001.00000092',1539,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4484 (OscarMeyr), 23 April 2003','Regulations and Membership of Contests','Regulations and Membership of Contests',1051686345,'Rule 1539/3 (Power=1)\nRegulations and Membership of Contests\n\n No Player within Jurisdiction of a Contest\'s Regulations is\n bound to obey any Regulation or combination of Regulations that\n conflict with the Rules.\n\n The Regulations can specify the following:\n\n i) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become\n Contestmaster without eir consent. If left unspecified,\n the Contestmaster cannot change while the Contest exists.\n ii) How the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent. If\n this is not specified, they may only be spent when the\n Rules require it.\n iii) The amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of\n units of any specific Currency.\n iv) Additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants,\n and conditions under which Contestants cease to be\n Contestants.\n\n A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster.\n If the Contest Regulations specify an Entry Fee, the Player must\n also pay the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A\n Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the\n Contestmaster. A Contestmaster may publicly resign at any time,\n at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4484 (OscarMeyr), 23 April 2003'),(405148,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1727,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1051691627,'Rule 1727/13 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June\n 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by First\n Speaker Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think\n we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules\n are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was\n played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its official\n name of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the\n hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent\n advice of Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as soon as possible after the end\n of Agora\'s Birthday, the Herald shall award the boon of\n celebration to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday,\n publicly recognized Agora\'s Birthday;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Herald may select one Contest,\n in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which has as its purpose\n encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday. Within the\n month following Agora\'s Birthday, that Contest may award its\n Members the Patent Title Nth Anniversary Ribbon, where N is the\n number of years of Agora\'s existence;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on\n Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not\n publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of\n Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the\n Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge,\n Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit\n an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do\n take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this\n Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405149,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1677,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Honoring the New','Honoring the New',1051691627,'Rule 1677/11 (Power=1)\nHonoring the New\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a Player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall announce eir Arrival. This\n Announcement shall have the effect of setting that Player\'s\n kudos to twice the Tabla Rasa.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405150,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1976,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Honoring the Old','Honoring the Old',1051691627,'Rule 1976/5 (Power=1)\nHonoring the Old\n\n In the four weeks immediately after eir Grace Period ends, a\n Player (hereafter, the \'Protege\') may post a single message of\n Gratitude, naming up to four other Players (hereafter,\n \'Mentors\') e deems to have been helpful to em as a new Player.\n\n The effect of such a message is to award each Mentor the Boon of\n mentorship and award the Protege the Boon of politeness.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4143 (Blob), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4172 (root), 26 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4316 (Craig), 28 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4468 (Sherlock), 17 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405151,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1960,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Roles','Roles',1051691627,'Rule 1960/2 (Power=1)\nRoles\n\n Each player may have a Role, which is one of the following:\n\n (a) Politician,\n (b) Scribe,\n (c) Acolyte.\n\n A Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a\n Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous\n roles. Initially players do not have any role.\n\n A Player changes eir Role by publicly announcing which Role e is\n changing to, provided one of the following is true:\n\n 1) e has no role or e has not changed eir role in the past 3\n months.\n 2) e has not changed eir role in the past six weeks and e\n has paid a Fee of 2 kudos for the purpose of making this\n change\n 3) e has paid a Fee of 6 kudos for the purpose of making\n this change.\n\n The Registrar shall keep track of each player\'s role, and\n include it in eir report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4175 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405152,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1986,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Role-Based Powers','Role-Based Powers',1051691627,'Rule 1986/6 (Power=2)\nRole-Based Powers\n\n An action is a Progressive action if the rules so state.\n\n If an action is progressive, a Player (the Actor) may perform\n the action either:\n\n (a) with the Support of a number Players equal to one plus the\n number of times that actor has performed that action in the\n current week;\n (b) by paying a fee equal to the amount of Support required in\n (a);\n (c) if the number calculated in (a) is zero, by public\n announcement.\n\n A progressive action may be associated with a role if the rules\n so state. If an energetic action is associated with a role,\n only players who hold that role may perform, or support\n performance of, that action.\n\n Rubberstamping a Proposal is a progressive action for Scribes.\n A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable.\n\n Absolving an entity is a progressive action for Acolytes.\n Absolving an entity expunges 1 Blot from that entity.\n\n Debating an Undistributed Proposal is a progressive Action for\n Politicians. The effect of Debating a Proposal is to change its\n Chamber to one named by the Politician, provided it is legal for\n that Proposal to be in the named Chamber and the Proposal is not\n Sane.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4174 (Kelly), 7 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4254 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4401 (Goddess Eris), 23 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405153,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1664,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Rebellion','Rebellion',1051691627,'Rule 1664/21 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the emphemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the\n Oligarchy\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status, Oligarchy membership of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405154,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1955,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy',1051691627,'Rule 1955/8 (Power=1)\nThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n\n (a) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor of Oligarchs.\n\n (b) The GWotO\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of all\n Oligarchs, when their terms as Oligarchs expire, the\n identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly\n Speaker transition.\n\n (c) The GWotO shall have a budget containing the Oligarchy\n Charge Requirement, which is a positive integer less\n than 10, and the Oligarchic Term, which is a number of\n days between 30 and 90.\n\n (d) The GWotO may Without 2 Objections from Oligarchs replace\n the budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces\n eir intent to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4259 (root), 22 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405155,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1940,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',1051691627,'Rule 1940/7 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n The boon of Public Service exists for the purpose of awarding\n Officers for serving.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n Assistant Director of Personnel shall award:\n\n (A) 1 Public Service Boon for each Office, to the Player (if\n any) who held that Office for 16 or more days in the\n previous month;\n\n (B) 1 Public Service Boon to the Player (if any) who was Speaker\n for at least 16 days of the previous month.\n\n (C) 1 Public Service Boon to the Distributor if the Distributor\n is a Player and was both the Distributor and a Player for at\n least 16 days of the previous month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4361 (Steve), 16 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405156,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1963,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1051691627,'Rule 1963/5 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect;\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; or\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy as soon as\n possible. The GWoTO removes a Player from the Oligarchy by\n correctly announcing that at least one of the above\n conditions is true for that Player. The named Player ceases\n to be an Oligarch as of the GWoTO\'s announcement.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405157,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1936,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Oligarchic Service','Oligarchic Service',1051691627,'Rule 1936/10 (Power=2)\nOligarchic Service\n\n (a) Any Player eligible to do so may become an Oligarch at any\n time, by announcing that they do so. The fee associated\n with this action is the Oligarchy Charge Requirement if the\n Player is not a Politician, and half the Oligarchy Charge\n Requirement if the Player is a Politician.\n\n (b) By default, a Player remains an Oligarch for a period of\n time equal to the Oligarchic Term. The Grand Warden of the\n Oligarchy shall remove a Player from the Oligarchy by public\n announcement, as soon as possible after eir term expires.\n Other rules may cause Players to cease to be Oligarchs.\n\n (c) An Oligarch may extend their term of service by a length of\n time equal to the Oligarchic Term at any time by\n announcement. The Fee associated with this action is the\n same as the fee for becoming an Oligarch.\n\n (d) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy is reponsible for tracking\n membership of the Oligarchy, and individual Oligarchs\' terms\n of service.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4073 (Elysion), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4371 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405158,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2027,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Vacant Oligarchy','Vacant Oligarchy',1051691627,'Rule 2027/2 (Power=2)\nVacant Oligarchy\n\n At any time at which the number of Oligarchs is less than Quorum\n for an Ordinary Proposal, the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy may\n appoint any eligible Player to be an Oligarch, with the Support\n of the appointed Player and Without 3 Objections. The appointed\n Player becomes an Oligarch with a term of service equal to half\n of the Oligarchic Term.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4354 (RedKnight), 7 August 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405159,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1607,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Promotor','The Promotor',1051691627,'Rule 1607/11 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of the titles\n and submission dates of all proposals in the proposal pool.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405160,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1036,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Proposal Pool','The Proposal Pool',1051691627,'Rule 1036/15 (Power=1)\nThe Proposal Pool\n\n As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal,\n e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool.\n\n The base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but this may be\n altered by other Rules as long as it remains a positive integer.\n\n[CFJ 10: A Proposal remains a Proposal even if the Promotor changes\n before the Proposal is distributed.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 204, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 415 (KoJen), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1036, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1530, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1546, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2056, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3706 (Harlequin), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3841 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3945 (Peekee), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405161,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1952,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',1051691627,'Rule 1952/1 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n Each Proposal is either Distributable or Undistributable.\n Initially, each Proposal is Undistributable. When a Proposal\n becomes Disinterested, it immediately becomes Distributable and\n may not become Undistributable by any means as long as it\n remains Disinterested. The Rules may define other mechanisms\n through which a Proposal becomes Distributable or\n Undistributable.\n\n Any Player may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal\n Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and\n paying a fee equal to the Distribution Cost. Any Player may\n make an Undistributed Distributable Proposal Undistributable by\n paying a fee equal to twice the Distribution Cost.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405162,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1449,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Assessor','The Assessor',1051691627,'Rule 1449/16 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s Weekly Report shall include\n\n * a list of the identity and voting power for Proposals in each\n Chamber, for all entities with nonzero voting power in at\n least one Chamber.\n\n * the Voting Potentials of every Player.\n\n * the prevailing mode of voting on Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405163,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2052,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Voting Potential','Voting Potential',1051691627,'Rule 2052/0 (Power=2)\nVoting Potential\n\n (a) Associated with every Player is a non-negative integral\n number known as that Player\'s Voting Potential. At the\n beginning of each new month, every Player\'s Voting Potential\n is set to zero.\n\n (b) At any time, a Player may, by announcement, set their Voting\n Potential to any positive integer N. The Fee associated\n with this action is the Oligarchy Charge Requirement\n multiplied by N.\n\n (c) The Assessor is responsible for tracking these\n announcements, and recording Players\' Voting Potentials.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405164,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1950,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Voting Power','Voting Power',1051691627,'Rule 1950/6 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) An Oligarch: one;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n\n * A Player:\n (a) two plus that Player\'s Voting Potential if that\n Player is a non-Oligarch Politician;\n (b) one plus that Player\'s Voting Potential\n otherwise.\n\n * Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Parliamentary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) One, if the entity is one of the following:\n (a) The First Estate;\n (b) The Second Estate;\n (c) The Third Estate.\n (2) Any other entity, zero.\n\n (d) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (e) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote.\n (2) Votes on Parliamentary Proposals shall only be cast\n through specific mechanisms indicated by the Rules\n for each specific entity with Voting Power on\n Parliamentary Proposals.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405165,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2021,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Chamber Procedure','Chamber Procedure',1051691627,'Rule 2021/3 (Power=2)\nChamber Procedure\n\n (a) The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is a Fee for changing the\n Chamber of a Proposal. For any given Proposal, the Chamber\n Fee is initially 1.\n\n (b) When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed via this Rule:\n (1) the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled; and\n (2) if the Proposal is in its Voting Period, it is Aborted\n as described elsewhere, and returned to the Proposal\n Pool with its Distributability and other characteristics\n intact.\n\n (c) An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a\n Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which\n the Voting Period has not ended. If the Speaker Sanitises a\n Proposal, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere;\n the Proposal remains Distributable, but becomes Democratic\n and Sane.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405166,'rcs','00000001.00000093',947,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Bonus for Repeal','Bonus for Repeal',1051691627,'Rule 947/19 (Power=1)\nBonus for Repeal\n\n If there are 100 or more rules, and a proposal is adopted\n containing a provision that one or more rules be repealed, and\n if, in the Rulekeepor\'s estimation, the proposal simplifies the\n ruleset, then the Rulekeepor shall award the Proposer the Boon\n of Tapecutter.\n\n If the Rulekeepor decides that the proposal does not simplify\n the ruleset, e must announce this decision.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 947, Jul. 3 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Oct. 2 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2047, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3471 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3801 (Blob), Nov. 6 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3848 (Chuck), Mar. 26 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3947 (harvel), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4305 (harvel), 28 May 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405167,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1678,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Encourage Proposals by New Players','Encourage Proposals by New Players',1051691627,'Rule 1678/7 (Power=1)\nEncourage Proposals by New Players\n\n If a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was submitted by a\n Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor\n shall award the Proposor the Boon of Prodigy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2758 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4365 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405168,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1568,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Non-active Judges','Non-active Judges',1051691627,'Rule 1568/7 (Power=1)\nNon-active Judges\n\n A player who ceases to be active while selected as the judge of\n one or more calls for judgement (CFJs) commits the infraction of\n Judge Inactivity. This infraction is to be reported by the\n Clerk of the Courts, and has a Class of 0.1 times the number of\n CFJs for which the player was selected as judge when e ceased to\n be active.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405169,'rcs','00000001.00000093',502,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Salary for Judges','Salary for Judges',1051691627,'Rule 502/9 (Power=1)\nSalary for Judges\n\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the\n Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall award the\n Judge the Boon of Wisdom.\n\n As soon as possible after a Judgement is overturned on appeal,\n the Clerk of the Courts shall award the Judge the Albatross of\n Foolishness.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 430 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 13 1993\nAmended by Proposal 502 (Ronald Kunne), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1501, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1705, Sep. 4 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3635 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405170,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2047,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Kudos','Kudos',1051691627,'Rule 2047/0 (Power=2)\nKudos\n\n Kudos (singular Kudo) are an integral measure of a Player\'s\n Kismet and noteworthiness within the game of Agora.\n\n The Herald is the recordkeepor of Kudos. The kudos of a Player\n may only be changed as specified by the rules or by an\n instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n Agora, as a whole, also has a defined number of Kudos. No other\n non-Player entity has a defined number of Kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405171,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2048,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Englightenment','Englightenment',1051691627,'Rule 2048/0 (Power=1)\nEnglightenment\n\n A Player (the Sensei) may, by public announcement, enlighten\n Agora by choosing two Players to be the Yin and the Yang\n respectively. Such enlightenment has the effect of decreasing\n the Yin\'s kudos by one and increasing the Yang\'s kudos by one,\n provided:\n (i) the Sensei has at least one kudo;\n (ii) the Sensei has not previously enlightened Agora in the\n current week;\n (iii) the Sensei is not the Yang;\n (iv) the Sensei gives eir reasons for choosing both the Yin and\n Yang for a lesson.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405172,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2049,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Ephemera','Ephemera',1051691627,'Rule 2049/0 (Power=1)\nEphemera\n\n A Patent Title is Ephemeral if the rules state that the Patent\n Title is ephemeral. Karma is a stuck switch for ephemeral\n patent titles with states Boon and Albatross. Defining\n something to be a \'boon\' or an \'albatross\' is equivalent to\n defining it to be an ephemeral Patent Title with its Karma set\n as defined.\n\n Players may be permitted or required by the Rules to award or\n revoke Boons or Albatrosses. If so, these awards are performed\n by public announcement by the specified Players.\n\n A Player may hold multiple instances of a given type of\n ephemeral Patent title; if so, The Herald need only note the\n number of instances of these Patent Titles that each player\n holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405173,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2050,'Created by by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Garden','The Garden',1051691627,'Rule 2050/0 (Power=2)\nThe Garden\n\n A Daffodil is a Boon that may be awarded as the Rules specify or\n by an Instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n A Weed is an Albatross that may be awarded as the Rules specify\n or by an Instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n If there are no Players that hold at least one Weed or Daffodil,\n the Herald may repeal this Rule without Objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405174,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1942,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Property','Property',1051691627,'Rule 1942/3 (Power=1)\nProperty\n\n A property is an entity which the rules permit to be possessed\n by another entity. The term \"possess\" refers to the legal\n status of possessing a property; the terms \"possessor\" and\n \"owner\" are synonyms, as are \"possess\" and \"own\". Individual\n properties may not be created or destroyed, or their ownership\n changed, except in accordance with the rules.\n\n Each property shall have a recordkeepor, which is a player\n required to maintain a record of who owns that property. The\n Notary is the recordkeepor for each property that would\n otherwise have no recordkeepor.\n\n If one of the official duties of an officer is to be the\n recordkeepor of a property, then eir Weekly Report shall include\n this record and any changes thereto since the last posting of\n eir Report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405175,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1941,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Fees','Fees',1051691627,'Rule 1941/1 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or\n fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the\n specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next\n highest integer.\n\n To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is\n otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e\n is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for\n that action.\n\n If the Actor has kudos equal to or greater than the fee, the\n action is performed, the Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the fee,\n and Agora\'s kudos are increased by the fee.\n\n Any Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the\n Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the\n action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the\n attempted action.\n\n As soon as possible after such a challenge, the Herald shall\n confirm or deny whether the Actor possessed kudos equal to or\n greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action.\n\n If the Actor in fact possessed insufficient honor, the action\n shall be deemed to have not occurred and the kudos of the Actor\n shall be deemed to have not changed. Otherwise the action shall\n be deemed to have occurred (and the change in kudos shall be\n recorded).\n\n If a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days\n have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be\n permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge\n is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness.\n But in this case the Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is\n left with negative kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405176,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1853,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Levying Taxes','Levying Taxes',1051691627,'Rule 1853/10 (Power=1)\nLevying Taxes\n\n The Recordkeepor of a Currency (\"the taxing authority\") may levy\n a tax on that Currency only as follows:\n\n (A) First, the taxing authority publically issues an\n announcement of intent to levy a tax; second, at a later\n point, the taxing authority publically issues a tax notice\n (the levy).\n\n (B) To be valid, both the notice of intent to levy a tax, and\n the tax notice itself, must specify the elements of the tax,\n viz., the currency being taxed, the tax rate expressed as a\n percentage of holdings (which may not exceed 50%), and any\n exemptions.\n\n (C) The tax notice must be published between seven and fourteen\n days after the time of the announcement of the intent to\n issue the levy, and must be at least 30 days after the last\n valid tax notice published for that Currency. The\n announcement of intent to issue the levy may not take place\n while another attempt to levy a tax on that Currency is\n pending under the authority of this Rule.\n\n (D) The tax may include exemptions on a fixed amount of the\n holdings of every taxable entity, provided that:\n (i) All Players are exempt identical amounts,\n (ii) All Non-players are exempt identical amounts,\n (iii) The Non-players\' exemption is less than or equal to\n the Players\' exemption.\n\n (E) The tax debt for each taxable entity is calculated on the\n basis of the entity\'s holdings at the time of the\n publication of the notice of intent. Any holdings exempt\n from the tax are exempted, and the tax is applied to the\n remainder at the specified tax rate.\n\n (F) A tax notice must also indicate the currency holdings of\n each taxable entity at the time of the publication of the\n notice of intent to levy a tax, and the tax debt incurred by\n each such entity. Any error in the calculation of holdings\n or tax debts does not invalidate the tax notice with respect\n to the other taxable entities mentioned in it.\n\n (G) Upon the publication of a valid tax notice, each taxable\n entity incurs a debt to the Mintor of the Currency equal to\n eir tax debt.\n\n (H) All entities are taxable, except for:\n (i) rebellious players who were rebellious at the time the\n intent to levy was published, and\n (ii) entities explicitly specified by the rule authorizing\n the levy as non-taxable for that levy.\n\n Other Rules may specify conditions under which an entity other\n than the recordkeepor of a currency may be a taxing authority\n for the purposes of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3747 (Steve), May 22 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3790 (Steve), Oct. 6 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3857 (General Chaos), Apr. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4127 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4193 (Taral), 18 July 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4470 (Steve), 26 March 2003\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405177,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1661,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Right of Patronage','The Right of Patronage',1051691627,'Rule 1661/10 (Power=1)\nThe Right of Patronage\n\n A Speaker who is not Tainted has the Right of Patronage. This\n Right is the authority to, once a week, award the Boon Gold Star\n to a single Player who has not received this award within the\n preceding four weeks. The Speaker must provide a reason along\n with the Notice of Award.\n\n Such awards are only permitted to recognize acts the Speaker\n believes to be of benefit to the Agora community, acts that the\n Speaker believes to exceed the call of duty, or acts that the\n Speaker believes to be of extreme sacrifice for the good of the\n Game.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2708, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3644 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3660 (General Chaos), Jan. 17 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4033 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4151 (Kelly), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405178,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1887,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure','Auctions and the Default Auction Procedure',1051691627,'Rule 1887/19 (Power=1)\nAuctions and the Default Auction Procedure\n\n When an Auction is to be held and the procedure is not\n specified, the Auctioneer may select a rules-defined Auction\n Procedure. If e does not specify which procedure is to be used,\n the Default Auction Procedure shall be used.\n\n The Default Auction Procedure is as follows:\n\n (a) Auctioneer: the Auctioneer is the Player who initiates the\n Auction, and is responsible for collecting bids and\n announcing the result of the Auction. If the Rules require\n (or permit) an Auction to be initiated, but do not specify\n which Player shall initiate it, then the Speaker shall (or\n may) initiate it.\n\n (b) Bidders: every active Player may bid in an Auction;\n non-active Players may not bid. Activity is measured at the\n time a Player sends eir bid.\n\n (c) Auction Currency: each Auction is conducted in one\n particular currency. The Rule providing for a particular\n Auction must specify the currency to be used, or the Auction\n cannot take place.\n\n (d) Number of lots: each Auction is conducted for 1 or more\n identical lots of identical items, which must all be owned\n by the same entity. Throughout this Rule, N indicates the\n number of lots up for bid in the Auction.\n\n (e) Start of Auction: the Auction begins when the first\n announcement that an Auction has begun is made by a Player\n authorized to initiate the Auction. The announcement must\n contain:\n (1) the identity of the Auctioneer;\n (2) the Auction Currency;\n (3) the number of items being Auctioned; and\n (4) the value of the Starting Bid.\n\n (f) Errors in initiating Auctions: if one of the required\n elements is missing from the announcement initiating the\n Auction, or is incorrect, then the Auctioneer may let the\n Auction stand Without 2 Objections. If the Auction stands,\n then the announcement initiating the Auction is deemed to\n have been legal and correct for the purposes of the\n Rules. If the Auction does not stand, it is deemed not to\n have occurred.\n\n (g) Starting Bid: the Starting Bid is the minimum possible value\n of a bid. If not otherwise specified, the Starting Bid is\n equal to the MUQ of the Auction Currency.\n\n (h) Bidding: a bid is a public message from a bidder identifying\n the Auction e is bidding in, and specifying the amount of\n eir bid. Each bidder may make as many bids as e likes during\n the Auction. A bid is only valid if it satisfies the\n following conditions:\n (1) it is made after the start of the Auction, and before\n its end;\n (2) the amount of the bid is a multiple of the MUQ of the\n Auction Currency; and\n (3) the amount of the bid is no less than the Starting Bid.\n\n (i) Cancelling bids: a bidder may cancel eir bid while the\n Auction is in progress by publically identifying the bid to\n be cancelled.\n\n (j) End of Auction: the Auction ends if any of the following\n occur:\n (1) one week has passed from the start of the Auction, and\n no bids have been made; or\n (2) a bid has been made in the Auction, and 72 hours have\n passed without there being a change in the N highest\n bids in the Auction; or\n (3) 14 days have passed since the Auction began.\n\n (k) Winning bids: when the Auction ends, the winning bids are\n the N largest uncancelled valid bids in the Auction (or all\n valid uncancelled Bids, if there were less than N valid\n uncancelled bids). Ties shall be broken in favor of earlier-\n submitted bids. If there were no bids in the Auction, then\n the Auction has no winner.\n\n (l) Final Auction Price: the Final Auction Price is either:\n (1) the amount of the Nth highest bid, if there were N or\n more valid uncancelled bids in the auction; or\n (2) the Starting Bid, if there were greater than zero but\n fewer than N valid uncancelled bids.\n\n (m) Billing for winning bids: as soon as possible after the end\n of the Auction, the Auctioneer shall announce the winning\n bids and issue to each winning bidder a separate bill for\n each of eir winning bids.\n\n (n) Defaulting: a winning bidder has a week from the time e is\n billed by the Auctioneer for a winning bid e made to satisfy\n the debt arising from that bid. If e does not do so, e\n commits the Class 2 Infraction of Defaulting (reportable by\n the Auctioneer), and thereafter loses eir right to purchase\n the Auctioned item by paying the debt arising from that\n bid. As soon as possible after a winning bidder defaults on\n a bid, the Auctioneer shall Order the owner of the items\n being Auctioned to forgive the unsatisfied debt arising from\n the bid.\n\n (o) Unless specified otherwise, the owner of the Auctioned items\n shall incur a debt of one Auctioned lot of items to the\n winning bidder when the bill for that lot is paid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3979 (Elysion), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4026 (t), Jul. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4094 (Steve), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4122 (Goethe), Mar. 21 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4167 (root), 11 June 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4176 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4249 (Murphy), 19 February 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4356 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405179,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1377,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Herald','The Herald',1051691627,'Rule 1377/17 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405180,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2051,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Tabla Rasa','Tabla Rasa',1051691627,'Rule 2051/0 (Power=2)\nTabla Rasa\n\n The Herald\'s Budget shall consist of a positive integer between\n 5 and 25, known as the Tabla Rasa.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each quarter, the\n Herald shall announce the Turning of a New Parchment.\n\n The effect of such an announcement is to:\n (A) set each Player\'s kudos equal to:\n (i) the Tabla Rasa;\n (ii) plus the number of boons e holds;\n (iii) minus the number of albatrosses e holds;\n (iv) minus one for every 3 Blots e has.\n\n (B) set Agora\'s kudos equal to the Tabla Rasa times\n the current number of Players;\n\n (C) revoke all ephemeral Patent Titles.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405181,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2018,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Expunging Blots with Indulgences','Expunging Blots with Indulgences',1051691627,'Rule 2018/1 (Power=1)\nExpunging Blots with Indulgences\n\n A non-Immaculate entity may expunge a number of eir Blots, up to\n eir total Stain, by announcing the number of eir Blots e\n expunges; this has a Fee of 2 Kudos per expunged Blot.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405182,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1747,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Pardoning Lawlessness','Pardoning Lawlessness',1051691627,'Rule 1747/7 (Power=1)\nPardoning Lawlessness\n\n The Clerk of the Courts has the power to Pardon Fugitives from\n Justice that have been deregistered for Lawlessness. The Clerk\n may not exercise this power more than once per Agoran month, and\n may not Pardon the same person twice in a given term of Office\n (although, if re-elected later, e may again Pardon that person).\n The Clerk of the Courts Pardons a Fugitive from Justice by\n publicly announcing e is doing so. Then the following events\n shall occur:\n\n i) The Clerk of the Courts shall expunge as many of the\n Fugitive\'s Blots as required to reduce eir Stain to one\n less than the threshold for Lawlessness, and notify the\n Herald of this action.\n\n ii) After the above step has been completed, the Fugitive may\n reregister as a Player.\n\n iii) The Pardoned Player shall then publish a Formal Apology\n for eir Lawlessness. The CotC may include a list of up to\n ten Prescribed Words in eir Pardon.\n\n iv) For three months after being Pardoned, the Pardoned Player\n may not perform any Progressive Actions except expunging\n Blots from eir record, unless e is Immaculate.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule governing Lawlessness,\n or when a deregistered Player may reregister.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3586 (Vlad), Nov. 14 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3931 (Crito), Oct. 17 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4038 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405183,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1439,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Default Penalty for Violating a Rule','Default Penalty for Violating a Rule',1051691627,'Rule 1439/10 (Power=1)\nDefault Penalty for Violating a Rule\n\n Violating a Rule is the Class N Crime of Disobedience, unless\n other Rules define or prohibit a penalty for the violation. N\n is the Power of the violated Rule (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), or 4, whichever is less.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1460, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1674, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2879 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic,\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823, (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405184,'rcs','00000001.00000093',1458,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Notary','The Notary',1051691627,'Rule 1458/12 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions,\n and generic information, excluding holdings, of currencies.\n\n The Notary\'s Report shall include the following information:\n\n (A) For each organization:\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n (B) For each currency, its name, mintor, recordkeepor, and\n Minimum Unit Quantity.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of\n any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that Organization.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2810 (Blob), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Oct. 12 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1458, Oct. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(10) by Propoal 01-002 (Blob), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405185,'rcs','00000001.00000093',2042,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Team Wins','Team Wins',1051691627,'Rule 2042/1 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\n A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches 400.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win\n as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. The\n Scorekeepor shall then award each team member the Boon Team\n Ribbon.\n\n Upon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set\n to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405186,'rcs','00000001.00000094',1965,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4487 (root), 28 April 2003','Complacent Oligarchy','Complacent Oligarchy',1051695049,'Rule 1965/2 (Power=2)\nComplacent Oligarchy\n\n As soon as possible after an ordinary proposal fails quorum, the\n Assessor shall publish a Notice of Complacency to that effect.\n In addition, at any time during the voting period of an ordinary\n proposal for which the number of entities eligible to vote on\n the proposal is less than the quorum of the proposal, the\n Assessor may immediately publish a Notice of Complacency without\n waiting for the proposal\'s voting period to end.\n\n Upon publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency for\n a proposal, the proposal is immediately aborted. In addition,\n the copy of the proposal that is added to the proposal pool as a\n result of the abortion becomes democratic and distributable.\n\n Publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency not\n strictly authorized or required by this rule is the Class 2\n Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4161 (Steve), 5 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4487 (root), 28 April 2003'),(405187,'rcs','00000001.00000095',2018,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Expunging Blots','Expunging Blots',1051851987,'Rule 2018/1 (Power=1)\nExpunging Blots\n\n A non-Immaculate entity may expunge a number of eir Blots, up to\n eir total Stain, by announcing the number of eir Blots e\n expunges; this has a Fee of 2 Kudos per expunged Blot.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405188,'rcs','00000001.00000096',1686,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4489 (root), 6 May 2003','Official Reports','Official Reports',1052809012,'Rule 1686/11 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an\n Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly\n Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official\n Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official\n Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.\n\n The rules may specify conditions under which a player is mauve;\n that player is not mauve unless the rules explicitly state at\n least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied.\n As soon as possible after a player becomes mauve, the Speaker\n shall announce this fact. The only condition for mauveness is\n being nicknamed Blob.\n\n Each officer with a Weekly Report must publish it weekly; each\n officer with a Monthly Report must publish it monthly. Failure\n to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure to Report. If an\n officer fails to do so for at least three consecutive reporting\n periods, e may be cited for either Failure to Report or the\n Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty but not both. Any\n officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is immediately removed\n from that office. The Assistant Director of Personnel and the\n Speaker may report these Infractions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4489 (root), 6 May 2003'),(405189,'rcs','00000001.00000096',1990,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4492 (Peekee), 6 May 2003','Points Contests','Points Contests',1052809012,'Rule 1990/3 (Power=1)\nPoints Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states\n that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the\n Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Agoran\n month.\n\n PWIN is 100. PPP (Points Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.\n\n Once during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a\n Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of\n Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s\n Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be\n awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants\n may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing.\n The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained\n in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.\n\n The total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each\n such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of\n Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the\n 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are\n listed the Notice is invalid.\n\n The total number of Points that a single Player may receive from\n all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN\n divided by five. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a\n Player\'s total to more points than this than the Notice is\n invalid for that Player only.\n\n The posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event\n Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4191 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4492 (Peekee), 6 May 2003'),(405190,'rcs','00000001.00000096',2042,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4491 (Peekee), 6 May 2003','Team Wins','Team Wins',1052809012,'Rule 2042/2 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\n A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches 400.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win\n as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the\n announcement the Scorekeepor shall payout 25 Stems to each\n Player in the winning Team.\n\n Later in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign\n the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;\n\n 1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the\n highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest\n Team Score.\n\n 2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the\n lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as\n evenly as possible among the Teams.\n\n 3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.\n\n If in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player\n or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable\n Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include\n the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.\n\n Upon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set\n to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4491 (Peekee), 6 May 2003'),(405191,'rcs','00000001.00000098',1986,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4493 (Steve), 13 May 2003','Role-Based Powers','Role-Based Powers',1053321712,'Rule 1986/7 (Power=2)\nRole-Based Powers\n\n An action is a Progressive action if the rules so state.\n\n If an action is progressive, a Player (the Actor) may perform\n the action either:\n\n (a) with the Support of a number Players equal to one plus the\n number of times that actor has performed that action in the\n current week;\n (b) by paying a fee equal to the amount of Support required in\n (a);\n (c) if the number calculated in (a) is zero, by public\n announcement.\n\n A progressive action may be associated with a role if the rules\n so state. If an progressive action is associated with a role,\n only players who hold that role may perform, or support\n performance of, that action.\n\n Rubberstamping a Proposal is a progressive action for Scribes.\n A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable.\n\n Absolving an entity is a progressive action for Acolytes.\n Absolving an entity expunges 1 Blot from that entity.\n\n Debating an Undistributed Proposal is a progressive Action for\n Politicians. The effect of Debating a Proposal is to change its\n Chamber to one named by the Politician, provided it is legal for\n that Proposal to be in the named Chamber and the Proposal is not\n Sane.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4174 (Kelly), 7 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4254 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4281 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4401 (Goddess Eris), 23 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4493 (Steve), 13 May 2003'),(405192,'rcs','00000001.00000098',649,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1053321712,'Rule 649/15 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly\n announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and\n which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or\n persons.\n\n Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states\n Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without\n Objection, cause a Title be switched from Historical\n Significance to Hysterical Significance.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003'),(405193,'rcs','00000001.00000098',2049,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Ephemera','Ephemera',1053321712,'Rule 2049/0 (Power=1)\nEphemera\n\n A Patent Title has Ephemeral significance if the rules state\n that the Patent Title is ephemeral. Karma is a stuck switch for\n ephemeral patent titles with states Boon and Albatross.\n Defining something to be a \'boon\' or an \'albatross\' is\n equivalent to defining it to be an ephemeral Patent Title with\n its Karma set as defined.\n\n Players may be permitted or required by the Rules to award or\n revoke Boons or Albatrosses. If so, these awards are performed\n by public announcement by the specified Players.\n\n A Player may hold multiple instances of a given type of\n ephemeral Patent title; if so, The Herald need only note the\n number of instances of these Patent Titles that each player\n holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405194,'rcs','00000001.00000098',1942,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003','Property','Property',1053321712,'Rule 1942/4 (Power=1)\nProperty\n\n A property is an entity which the rules permit to be possessed\n by another entity. The term \"possess\" refers to the legal\n status of possessing a property; the terms \"possessor\" and\n \"owner\" are synonyms, as are \"possess\" and \"own\". Individual\n properties may not be created or destroyed, or their ownership\n changed, except in accordance with the rules.\n\n Each property shall have a recordkeepor, which is a player\n required to maintain a record of who owns that property. The\n Notary is the recordkeepor for each property that would\n otherwise have no recordkeepor.\n\n If one of the official duties of an officer is to be the\n recordkeepor of a property, then eir Weekly Report shall include\n this record and any changes thereto since the last posting of\n eir Report.\n\n If a category of properties ceases to exist, all debts of that\n property shall cease to exist. The former recordkeepor of that\n property category must, as soon as possible after the category\n ceases to exist, publish entities\' holdings of that category as\n they existed immediately before this destruction.\n\n If a Player destroys a category of property for which e is a\n debtor, e commits the Class-4 Crime of Writing Bad Checks.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003'),(405195,'rcs','00000001.00000098',1908,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003','Abandoned Property','Abandoned Property',1053321712,'Rule 1908/5 (Power=1)\nAbandoned Property\n\n Property possessed by an entity (the Dissolute) without a Prime\n Executor is deemed to be abandoned as long as it is possessed by\n the Dissolute.\n\n The Notary is a Limited Executor of each Dissolute, on behalf of\n whom e may:\n\n (1) transfer property owned by em to any creditor of any of eir\n debts, for the purpose of making partial or complete payment\n on those debts;\n\n (2) forgive in part or in full any debts owed to em;\n\n (3) Without Objection, transfer property owned by em to the\n Mintor or Recordkeepor of that Property, unless the\n Dissolute was a player before eir property was abandoned; or\n\n (4) transfer property to satisfy the Dissolute\'s Will, provided\n that the Dissolute was not Silent when e lost eir Prime\n Executor and all debts for that type of property that the\n Dissolute had when e lost eir Prime Executor have been\n satisfied.\n\n If any entity possessing property dies, dissolves, or otherwise\n ceases to exist, that entity shall be deemed to exist for as\n long as e possesses property.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3930 (Murphy), Oct. 17 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003'),(405196,'rcs','00000001.00000098',1930,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003','Scoring','Scoring',1053321712,'Rule 1930/6 (Power=1)\nScoring\n\n (a) If a Player wins a contested Election, e may be Awarded 10\n Points.\n\n (b) If a Player Resigns from an Office, e may be Penalized 5\n Points.\n\n (c) If a Player is Impeached, e may be Penalized 15 Points.\n\n (d) If a Revolt succeeds, each Rebellious Player may be Awarded\n 15 Points.\n\n (e) If a Revolt fails, each Rebellious Player may be Penalized\n 10 Points.\n\n (f) If a Player submits a Disinterested Proposal which is\n Adopted, e may be Awarded 1 Point, plus 1 Point for each\n vote that was cast AGAINST the Proposal.\n\n (g) If a Player submits an Interested Proposal which is Adopted,\n e may be Awarded 4 Points, plus 1 Point for each vote that\n was cast AGAINST the Proposal.\n\n (h) If a Player is the only Player to Vote either FOR or AGAINST\n a particular Proposal that e did not write or Propose, e may\n be Awarded 2 Points.\n\n (i) If a Judgement is Sustained on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Awarded 5 Points\n\n (j) If a Judgement is Overturned on Appeal, the original Judge\n may be Penalized 5 Points.\n\n (k) If a Player gains a Historical Patent Title which e has not\n held during the 7 days prior to gaining it, e may be Awarded\n 5 Points.\n\n (l) If a Player is granted a Degree e has not previously held, e\n may be Awarded 10 Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4113 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4320 (t), 28 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4365 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003'),(405197,'rcs','00000001.00000098',2041,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003','Teams','Teams',1053321712,'Rule 2041/1 (Power=1)\nTeams\n\n All Players are grouped into units known as Teams. No Player\n may belong to more than one Team at any time.\n\n Each Team shall have a Team Name by which it is known. A Player\n in a Team may change that Team\'s Team Name with the Support of\n two other Players in the same Team.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003'),(405198,'rcs','00000001.00000098',2053,'Created by by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003','Team Points, Team Scores','Team Points, Team Scores',1053321712,'Rule 2053/0 (Power=1)\nTeam Points, Team Scores\n\n A Team Score is at all times an integer. The Team Score of a\n Team is the total sum of all Points of all Players grouped into\n that Team, plus the Team\'s Team Points.\n\n A Team who has not been Awarded or Penalized since the last Team\n Win has zero Team Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Team to be Awarded or Penalised Team Points. If said event\n occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award\n or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the\n affected Team Points.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific\n event\n\nHistory:\nCreated by by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003'),(405199,'rcs','00000001.00000098',2054,'Created by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003','Team Scoring','Team Scoring',1053321712,'Rule 2054/0 (Power=1)\nTeam Scoring\n\n (a) If all the Players on a Team Vote on a Democratic Proposal,\n the Team may be Awarded 10 Team Points.\n\n (b) If none of the Players on a Team Vote on a Democratic\n Proposal, the Team may be Penalised 20 Team Points.\n\n (c) If all the players on a Team vote FOR a Democratic Proposal\n and none of them vote AGAINST it, or all the players on a\n Team vote AGAINST a Democratic Proposal and none of them\n vote FOR it, the Team may be awarded 10 Team points.\n\n (d) If all the Players on a Team Vote in an Election, the Team\n may be Awarded 10 Team Points.\n\n (e) If none of the Players on a Team Vote in an Election, the\n Team may be Penalised 20 Team Points.\n\n (f) If all the Players on a Team Vote for the same Candidate in\n an Election, the Team may be awarded 10 Team Points.\n\n (g) If a Revolt succeeds, and every Player on a Team is\n Rebellious, the Team may be Awarded 30 Points.\n\n (h) If a Revolt fails, and every Player on a Team is Rebellious,\n the Team may be Penalised 30 Points.\n\n (i) Once in each Agoran week if all the Players on a Team are\n Immaculate, the Team may be Awarded 5 Team Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003'),(405200,'rcs','00000001.00000099',2055,'Created by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003','The Scorkeepor\'s Budget','The Scorkeepor\'s Budget',1055141146,'Rule 2055/0 (Power=1)\nThe Scorkeepor\'s Budget\n\n The Scorekeepor\'s Budget shall contain the following:\n\n (a) The Team Points Goal, which is a positive integer;\n (b) The PLIMIT and PPP, which are both positive integers; and\n (c) Various Scoring Events;\n\n Each Scoring Event must contain the following information:\n\n (1) Whether it is an Award or a Penalty;\n (2) The amount of the Award or Penalty, which is a positive\n integer;\n (3) The conditions required for the Event to occur;\n (4) A description of which Player or Team is to receive the\n Award or Penalty.\n\n If the conditions for a Scoring Event are met then the given\n Player or Team may be Awarded or Penalized an amount of Points\n as in that Event\'s description in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003'),(405201,'rcs','00000001.00000099',1990,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003','Points Contests','Points Contests',1055141146,'Rule 1990/4 (Power=1)\nPoints Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states\n that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the\n Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Agoran\n month.\n\n The PLIMIT and PPP (Points Per Player) are as set in the\n Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\n Once during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a\n Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of\n Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s\n Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be\n awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants\n may be awarded different numbers of points in the same\n listing. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting\n contained in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.\n\n The total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each\n such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of\n Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the\n 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than this are\n listed the Notice is invalid.\n\n The total number of Points that a single Player may receive from\n all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed the PLIMIT.\n If a Points Contest Notice would bring a Player\'s total to more\n points than this than the Notice is invalid for that Player\n only.\n\n The posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event\n Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4191 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4492 (Peekee), 6 May 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003'),(405202,'rcs','00000001.00000099',2042,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003','Team Wins','Team Wins',1055141146,'Rule 2042/3 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\n A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches\n the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win\n as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the\n announcement the Scorekeepor shall payout 25 Stems to each\n Player in the winning Team.\n\n Later in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign\n the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;\n\n 1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the\n highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest\n Team Score.\n\n 2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the\n lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as\n evenly as possible among the Teams.\n\n 3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.\n\n If in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player\n or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable\n Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include\n the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.\n\n Upon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set\n to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4491 (Peekee), 6 May 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003'),(405203,'rcs','00000001.00000100',2042,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4503 (Peekee), 15 June 2003','Team Wins','Team Wins',1055738857,'Rule 2042/4 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\n A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches\n the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win\n as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the\n announcement the Scorekeepor shall award the Boon of Teamwork to\n each Player in the winning Team.\n\n Later in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign\n the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;\n\n 1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the\n highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest\n Team Score.\n\n 2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the\n lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as\n evenly as possible among the Teams.\n\n 3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.\n\n If in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player\n or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable\n Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include\n the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.\n\n Upon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores are set\n to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4491 (Peekee), 6 May 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4503 (Peekee), 15 June 2003'),(405204,'rcs','00000001.00000101',754,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003','Freedom of Communication','Freedom of Communication',1056346841,'Rule 754/5 (Power=3)\nFreedom of Communication\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the\n Fora.\n\n (2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule,\n Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another\n reference.\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (3) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (4) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted\n as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language\n synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. In\n particular, the term \"number\" shall be interpreted as \"real\n number\".\n\n (5) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall\n be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those\n contexts.\n\n (6) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language\n meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 712: This includes referring to a Player by a method other than\n eir name or nickname, as long as it is unambiguous.\n CFJ 744: In the context of Rule Changes, text in an existing Rule\n must be quoted exactly in order to be unambiguous.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003'),(405205,'rcs','00000001.00000101',459,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4505 (Murphy), 20 June 2003','Agoran Epochs','Agoran Epochs',1056346841,'Rule 459/5 (Power=1)\nAgoran Epochs\n\n Days, weeks, months, quarters, and years are epochs. The\n corresponding Agoran epochs are Agoran days, Agoran weeks,\n Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran years, respectively.\n\n Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at\n midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on\n the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin\n when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October\n begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next Agoran epoch of\n the same type begins.\n\n Except in this Rule, when the Rules refer to an epoch as an\n independent entity (e.g. \"each month\"), they shall be\n interpreted as referring to the corresponding Agoran epoch.\n However, when the Rules refer to an epoch as a relative duration\n (e.g. \"one month after\", \"within one month\", \"for one month\"),\n they shall be interpreted as referring to the ordinary-language\n meaning of that duration.\n\n Automatic events that happen daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly,\n or yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran\n epoch. Any activity that must be performed daily, weekly,\n monthly, quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once\n during each corresponding Agoran epoch.\n\n Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events\n or classes of events.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 459 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4114 (Elysion), Mar. 2 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4505 (Murphy), 20 June 2003'),(405206,'rcs','00000001.00000101',1959,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4506 (Sherlock), 20 June 2003','Wills','Wills',1056346841,'Rule 1959/2 (Power=1)\nWills\n\n (a) An entity\'s Will is a description of how the entity\'s\n Property should be distributed in the event that the entity\n ceases to have an Executor. An entity may never have more\n than one Will.\n\n (b) An entity creates a Will for emself by publishing it.\n\n (c) An entity changes or destroys eir Will by announcing e does\n so.\n\n (d) The Notary shall keep a record of all Wills.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4082 (Peekee), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4506 (Sherlock), 20 June 2003'),(405207,'rcs','00000001.00000103',2036,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4511 (Murphy), 10 July 2003','The Silent Treatment','The Silent Treatment',1058162885,'Rule 2036/1 (Power=1)\nThe Silent Treatment\n\n (a) The publication of a Notice of Abandonment commences the\n Silent Treatment for the player identified in it.\n\n (b) The requirement to perform the actions described in this\n Rule is subject to the Notice of Abandonment remaining\n valid. If at any time during the Silent Treatment the Notice\n of Abandonment is invalid, then the Treatment is terminated,\n and the Registrar is relieved of all powers and\n responsibilities regarding it.\n\n (c) As soon as possible after the commencement of the Silent\n Treatment, the Registrar shall:\n\n (1) publically confirm whether the Notice of Abandonment was\n valid at the commencement of the Silent Treatment, and\n whether it remains valid;\n\n (2) publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to each\n listed e-mail address of the player, a Notice of Intent\n to Deregister, identifying the player to be deregistered\n (the same as in the Notice of Abandonment), and\n announcing the Registrar\'s intent to deregister that\n player after one month has passed.\n\n (d) If the Notice of Abandonment remains valid a month after the\n publication of the Notice of Intent to Deregister, then the\n Registrar shall, as soon as possible, publish in all\n designated Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail\n address of the player, a Notice of Deregistration,\n identifying the player being deregistered (the same as in\n the Notice of Abandonment). A Notice of Deregistration is\n valid if and only if it is published by the Registrar,\n following the procedures described in this Rule.\n\n (e) Upon publication of a valid Notice of Deregistration, the\n following events occur in order:\n\n (1) if the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration\n is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker\n Abandonment; e ceases to be Speaker, and the\n Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker;\n\n (2) the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is\n deregistered;\n\n (3) the Silent Treatment for that player concludes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4511 (Murphy), 10 July 2003'),(405208,'rcs','00000001.00000103',1558,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4509 (Murphy), 10 July 2003','Defaults for Elections for Offices','Defaults for Elections for Offices',1058162885,'Rule 1558/6 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections for Offices\n\n When the Rules require that an Election be conducted to fill\n an Office, that Election shall be conducted in accordance with\n the usual Rules for Elections, with the following exceptions:\n\n * The Vote Collector is the Assistant Director of Personnel at\n the time the Election begins, unless the Election seeks to\n fill the Office of Assistant Director of Personnel, in which\n case the Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the\n Election begins.\n\n * No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted\n Nomination, would not be permitted to hold the Office which\n the Election is seeking to fill.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3628 (Murphy), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4509 (Murphy), 10 July 2003'),(405209,'rcs','00000001.00000103',2057,'Created by Proposal 4514 (Murphy), 10 July 2003','A Duty to Vote','A Duty to Vote',1058162885,'Rule 2057/0 (Power=1)\nA Duty to Vote\n\n When an election fails quorum, each eligible voter who did not\n vote commits the Class 1 Infraction of Apathy, to be reported by\n the vote collector.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4514 (Murphy), 10 July 2003'),(405210,'rcs','00000001.00000103',2056,'Created by Proposal 4513 (Steve), 10 July 2003','Invisibilitating','Invisibilitating',1058162885,'Rule 2056/0 (Power=1)\nInvisibilitating\n\n Each player is authorised to report the Infraction of\n Invisibilitating.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4513 (Steve), 10 July 2003'),(405211,'rcs','00000001.00000103',1670,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4511 (Murphy), 10 July 2003','The Distributor','The Distributor',1058162885,'Rule 1670/14 (Power=1)\nThe Distributor\n\n The person who is most responsible for the maintainance of one\n or more Public Fora, in the opinion of the Registrar, shall be\n known as the Distributor. Any changes in the identity of the\n Distributor shall take effect when announced publicly by the\n Registrar.\n\n The Registrar is obliged to keep the Distributor informed of all\n listed e-mail addresses of all Players, as well as to inform the\n Distributor of any listing or unlisting as soon as possible\n after e learns of it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 1670, May 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 4 1997, substantial,\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1670, Dec. 18 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3754 (Steve), Jun. 9 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4511 (Murphy), 10 July 2003'),(405212,'rcs','00000001.00000103',1531,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003','Administrators of Organizations','Administrators of Organizations',1058162885,'Rule 1531/10 (Power=1)\nAdministrators of Organizations\n\n Each Organization shall have an Administrator, who must be a\n Member. The Administrator of an Organization may only change as\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator is Maintainer of the Charter, unless otherwise\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator shall inform the Notary of the following\n changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the\n nature of the change:\n\n a) The Name changes.\n b) The Administrator changes.\n c) The Executor changes.\n d) The Maintainer of the Charter changes.\n e) The jurisdiction of the Charter changes.\n f) The Organization voluntarily dissolves.\n g) The Charter changes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jul. 20 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1531, Aug. 3 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003'),(405213,'rcs','00000001.00000103',1458,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003','The Notary','The Notary',1058162885,'Rule 1458/13 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Weekly Report shall include the following\n information for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n The Notary\'s Monthly Report shall include the SLC of each\n Organization.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of\n any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that Organization.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2810 (Blob), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Oct. 12 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1458, Oct. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(10) by Propoal 01-002 (Blob), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003'),(405214,'rcs','00000001.00000104',1552,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4517 (Murphy), 18 July 2003','Requirements for Ratification','Requirements for Ratification',1058765380,'Rule 1552/4 (Power=1)\nRequirements for Ratification\n\n An Official Document is legally permissible to Ratify if and\n only if all of the following are true:\n\n a) The Rules required some specific Player to produce and/or\n maintain the document.\n\n b) The Rules required it to be published. (A requirement that\n it be sent to all Players fulfills this criterion.)\n\n c) It is not currently subject to a Claim of Error (COE).\n\n d) It is not currently subject to a pending Call for Judgement\n (CFJ), or a pending Appeal of a CFJ.\n\n e) The information within the Document has not been superseded\n by a subsequent Document that contradicts it. (This does not\n apply if a COE alleging the contradiction is in error is\n admitted.)\n\n f) The Document is not the Ruleset. The Ruleset is specifically\n excluded from Ratification.\n\n Ratification by Proposal is effective only if the Document is\n legally permissible to Ratify when the Proposal takes effect.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3510 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4517 (Murphy), 18 July 2003'),(405215,'rcs','00000001.00000104',1664,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003','Rebellion','Rebellion',1058765380,'Rule 1664/22 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the\n Oligarchy\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n - Any Indulgence Auction in progress is cancelled\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status, Oligarchy membership of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003'),(405216,'rcs','00000001.00000105',869,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003','Registered Players','Registered Players',1059981604,'Rule 869/14 (Power=1)\nRegistered Players\n\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Readiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and\n unready.\n\n An unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period\n shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which\n elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that\n Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by\n reason of that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003'),(405217,'rcs','00000001.00000105',1677,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003','Honoring the New','Honoring the New',1059981604,'Rule 1677/12 (Power=1)\nHonoring the New\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a Player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall announce eir Arrival. This\n Announcement shall have the effect of setting that Player\'s\n kudos to twice the Tabla Rasa.\n\n If a Player joins the game, but is neither subject to a Grace\n Period nor been a Player at any time since the last Turning of a\n New Parchment, then the Herald shall set eir Kudos to half the\n Tabla Rasa (rounded up).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003'),(405218,'rcs','00000001.00000105',1042,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1059981604,'Rule 1042/20 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and\n silent.\n\n A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public\n forum.\n\n A player may flip another player\'s noisiness from noisy to\n quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past\n 24 hours.\n\n If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the\n game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the\n player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003'),(405219,'rcs','00000001.00000105',1960,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003','Roles','Roles',1059981604,'Rule 1960/3 (Power=1)\nRoles\n\n Role is a stuck player switch with values null, politician,\n scribe, and acolyte.\n\n A player may flip eir role if one of the following is true:\n\n a) Eir role is null.\n\n b) E has not changed eir role in the past three months.\n\n c) E has not changed eir role in the past six weeks, and e pays\n a fee of 2 kudos for the purpose of making this change.\n\n d) E pays a fee of 6 kudos for the purpose of making this\n change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4175 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003'),(405220,'rcs','00000001.00000105',1623,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003','Disinterested Proposals','Disinterested Proposals',1059981604,'Rule 1623/12 (Power=1)\nDisinterested Proposals\n\n Interest is a stuck proposal switch with values interested and\n disinterested.\n\n A player may flip an undistributed proposal\'s interest to\n disinterested, without objection.\n\n When a proposal becomes disinterested, it becomes distributable,\n and its depth may not be flipped to undistributable while it\n remains disinterested.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2581, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2597, May 11 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2636, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2738 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2815 (Zefram), Feb. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3537 (Steve), Jul. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003'),(405221,'rcs','00000001.00000105',1952,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',1059981604,'Rule 1952/3 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n Depth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and\n distributable.\n\n A player may flip a proposal\'s depth to distributable by paying\n a fee equal to its Distribution Cost, or to undistributable by\n paying a fee equal to twice its Distribution Cost.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003'),(405222,'rcs','00000001.00000105',2057,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4519 (root), 30 July 2003','A Duty to Vote','A Duty to Vote',1059981604,'Rule 2057/1 (Power=1)\nA Duty to Vote\n\n When an election fails quorum, each eligible voter who did not\n vote or declare emself present commits the Class 1 Infraction of\n Apathy, to be reported by the vote collector.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4514 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4519 (root), 30 July 2003'),(405223,'rcs','00000001.00000105',1871,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003','Turns for All','Turns for All',1059981604,'Rule 1871/3 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and\n turned. The Clerk of the Courts shall maintain and report\n records for this switch.\n\n Whenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any\n future CFJs.\n\n Whenever there are no players eligible to be Trial Judge of a\n CFJ, all turned players become unturned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003'),(405224,'rcs','00000001.00000105',2032,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003','Errors in Judge Selection','Errors in Judge Selection',1059981604,'Rule 2032/1 (Power=1)\nErrors in Judge Selection\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a\n Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal, who:\n\n a) e believes at the time of selection to be eligible to judge\n the CFJ or Appeal; and\n b) is not eligible to judge the CFJ or Appeal at the time of\n selection solely because e is turned;\n\n then that selection shall stand and the selected Player shall\n become a Judge of that CFJ or Appeal, as if e had been eligible\n to judge it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4518 (Murphy), 30 July 2003'),(405225,'rcs','00000001.00000105',2047,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003','Kudos','Kudos',1059981604,'Rule 2047/1 (Power=2)\nKudos\n\n Kudos (singular Kudo) are an integral measure of a Player\'s\n Kismet and noteworthiness within the game of Agora.\n\n The Herald is the recordkeepor of Kudos. The kudos of a Player\n may only be changed as specified by the rules or by an\n instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n Agora, as a whole, also has a defined number of Kudos. No other\n non-Player entity has a defined number of Kudos.\n\n If an entity has a defined number of Kudos, but the number has\n not been set by the Rules, then the entity has 1 Kudo.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003'),(405226,'rcs','00000001.00000106',869,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003','Registered Players','Registered Players',1060771484,'Rule 869/13 (Power=1)\nRegistered Players\n\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A\n Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player\n is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period\n shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which\n elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that\n Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by\n reason of that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003'),(405227,'rcs','00000001.00000106',1677,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Honoring the New','Honoring the New',1060771484,'Rule 1677/11 (Power=1)\nHonoring the New\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a Player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall announce eir Arrival. This\n Announcement shall have the effect of setting that Player\'s\n kudos to twice the Tabla Rasa.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405228,'rcs','00000001.00000106',1042,'Amneded(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1060771484,'Rule 1042/19 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never\n more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts\n to a public forum, that player is noisy.\n\n (b) A player who has not quietened another active, noisy player\n in the past 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player\n to become quiet by publically identifying the player and\n stating that e causes that player to become quiet.\n\n (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned\n the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if\n the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmneded(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002'),(405229,'rcs','00000001.00000106',1960,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Roles','Roles',1060771484,'Rule 1960/2 (Power=1)\nRoles\n\n Each player may have a Role, which is one of the following:\n\n (a) Politician,\n (b) Scribe,\n (c) Acolyte.\n\n A Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a\n Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous\n roles. Initially players do not have any role.\n\n A Player changes eir Role by publicly announcing which Role e is\n changing to, provided one of the following is true:\n\n 1) e has no role or e has not changed eir role in the past 3\n months.\n 2) e has not changed eir role in the past six weeks and e\n has paid a Fee of 2 kudos for the purpose of making this\n change\n 3) e has paid a Fee of 6 kudos for the purpose of making\n this change.\n\n The Registrar shall keep track of each player\'s role, and\n include it in eir report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4175 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405230,'rcs','00000001.00000106',1623,'Amended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000','Disinterested Proposals','Disinterested Proposals',1060771484,'Rule 1623/11 (Power=1)\nDisinterested Proposals\n\n A Proposal may be Interested or Disinterested. Each Proposal is\n Interested when made. The Proposer of a Proposal may cause it to\n become Disinterested, without objection, but only if the\n Proposal has not yet been distributed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2581, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2597, May 11 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2636, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2738 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2815 (Zefram), Feb. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3537 (Steve), Jul. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000'),(405231,'rcs','00000001.00000106',1952,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',1060771484,'Rule 1952/1 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n Each Proposal is either Distributable or Undistributable.\n Initially, each Proposal is Undistributable. When a Proposal\n becomes Disinterested, it immediately becomes Distributable and\n may not become Undistributable by any means as long as it\n remains Disinterested. The Rules may define other mechanisms\n through which a Proposal becomes Distributable or\n Undistributable.\n\n Any Player may make any Undistributable Proposal in the Proposal\n Pool Distributable by publicly announcing that e is doing so and\n paying a fee equal to the Distribution Cost. Any Player may\n make an Undistributed Distributable Proposal Undistributable by\n paying a fee equal to twice the Distribution Cost.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405232,'rcs','00000001.00000106',2057,'Created by Proposal 4514 (Murphy), 10 July 2003','A Duty to Vote','A Duty to Vote',1060771484,'Rule 2057/0 (Power=1)\nA Duty to Vote\n\n When an election fails quorum, each eligible voter who did not\n vote commits the Class 1 Infraction of Apathy, to be reported by\n the vote collector.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4514 (Murphy), 10 July 2003'),(405233,'rcs','00000001.00000106',1871,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002','Turns for All','Turns for All',1060771484,'Rule 1871/2 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Whenever a Player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e begins\n to Turn Around And Around. Players who are Turning Around And\n Around are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any future CFJs.\n\n Whenever there are no Players eligible to be Trial Judge of a\n CFJ, all Players who are Turning Around And Around cease Turning\n Around And Around.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002'),(405234,'rcs','00000001.00000106',2032,'Created by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002','Errors in Judge Selection','Errors in Judge Selection',1060771484,'Rule 2032/0 (Power=1)\nErrors in Judge Selection\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a\n Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal, who:\n\n a) e believes at the time of selection to be eligible to judge\n the CFJ or Appeal; and\n b) is not eligible to judge the CFJ or Appeal at the time of\n selection solely because e is Turning Around And Around;\n\n then that selection shall stand and the selected Player shall\n become a Judge of that CFJ or Appeal, as if e had been eligible\n to judge it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002'),(405235,'rcs','00000001.00000106',2047,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Kudos','Kudos',1060771484,'Rule 2047/0 (Power=2)\nKudos\n\n Kudos (singular Kudo) are an integral measure of a Player\'s\n Kismet and noteworthiness within the game of Agora.\n\n The Herald is the recordkeepor of Kudos. The kudos of a Player\n may only be changed as specified by the rules or by an\n instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n Agora, as a whole, also has a defined number of Kudos. No other\n non-Player entity has a defined number of Kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405236,'rcs','00000001.00000107',1677,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003','Honoring the New','Honoring the New',1060771787,'Rule 1677/12 (Power=1)\nHonoring the New\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a Player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall announce eir Arrival. This\n Announcement shall have the effect of setting that Player\'s\n kudos to twice the Tabla Rasa.\n\n If a Player joins the game, but is neither subject to a Grace\n Period nor been a Player at any time since the last Turning of a\n New Parchment, then the Herald shall set eir Kudos to half the\n Tabla Rasa (rounded up).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003'),(405237,'rcs','00000001.00000107',2047,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003','Kudos','Kudos',1060771787,'Rule 2047/1 (Power=2)\nKudos\n\n Kudos (singular Kudo) are an integral measure of a Player\'s\n Kismet and noteworthiness within the game of Agora.\n\n The Herald is the recordkeepor of Kudos. The kudos of a Player\n may only be changed as specified by the rules or by an\n instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n Agora, as a whole, also has a defined number of Kudos. No other\n non-Player entity has a defined number of Kudos.\n\n If an entity has a defined number of Kudos, but the number has\n not been set by the Rules, then the entity has 1 Kudo.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003'),(405238,'rcs','00000001.00000108',869,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','Registered Players','Registered Players',1062442923,'Rule 869/14 (Power=1)\nRegistered Players\n\n Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by\n sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as\n a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered Player.\n\n Readiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and\n unready.\n\n An unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.\n\n Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that\n person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time\n within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject\n to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration\n and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by\n this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period\n resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever:\n\n (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any\n Player\'s Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or\n\n (ii) any Player\'s Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during\n any Holiday,\n\n eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in\n length to that Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period\n shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which\n elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that\n Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by\n reason of that Holiday.\n\n For the purposes of determining when a Player\'s Grace Period is\n scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully\n or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be\n made separately for each Holiday.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405239,'rcs','00000001.00000108',1042,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1062442923,'Rule 1042/20 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and\n silent.\n\n A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public\n forum.\n\n A player may flip another player\'s noisiness from noisy to\n quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past\n 24 hours.\n\n If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the\n game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the\n player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405240,'rcs','00000001.00000108',1960,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','Roles','Roles',1062442923,'Rule 1960/3 (Power=1)\nRoles\n\n Role is a stuck player switch with values null, politician,\n scribe, and acolyte.\n\n A player may flip eir role if one of the following is true:\n\n a) Eir role is null.\n\n b) E has not changed eir role in the past three months.\n\n c) E has not changed eir role in the past six weeks, and e pays\n a fee of 2 kudos for the purpose of making this change.\n\n d) E pays a fee of 6 kudos for the purpose of making this\n change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4175 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405241,'rcs','00000001.00000108',1623,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','Disinterested Proposals','Disinterested Proposals',1062442923,'Rule 1623/12 (Power=1)\nDisinterested Proposals\n\n Interest is a stuck proposal switch with values interested and\n disinterested.\n\n A player may flip an undistributed proposal\'s interest to\n disinterested, without objection.\n\n When a proposal becomes disinterested, it becomes distributable,\n and its depth may not be flipped to undistributable while it\n remains disinterested.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2581, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2597, May 11 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2636, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2738 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2815 (Zefram), Feb. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3474 (Swann), May 2 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3537 (Steve), Jul. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405242,'rcs','00000001.00000108',1952,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',1062442923,'Rule 1952/3 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n Depth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and\n distributable.\n\n A player may flip a proposal\'s depth to distributable by paying\n a fee equal to its Distribution Cost, or to undistributable by\n paying a fee equal to twice its Distribution Cost.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405243,'rcs','00000001.00000108',2057,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4524 (root), 28 August 2003','A Duty to Vote','A Duty to Vote',1062442923,'Rule 2057/1 (Power=1)\nA Duty to Vote\n\n When an election fails quorum, each eligible voter who did not\n vote or declare emself present commits the Class 1 Infraction of\n Apathy, to be reported by the vote collector.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4514 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4524 (root), 28 August 2003'),(405244,'rcs','00000001.00000108',1871,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','Turns for All','Turns for All',1062442923,'Rule 1871/3 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and\n turned. The Clerk of the Courts shall maintain and report\n records for this switch.\n\n Whenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any\n future CFJs.\n\n Whenever there are no players eligible to be Trial Judge of a\n CFJ, all turned players become unturned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405245,'rcs','00000001.00000108',2032,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','Errors in Judge Selection','Errors in Judge Selection',1062442923,'Rule 2032/1 (Power=1)\nErrors in Judge Selection\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a\n Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal, who:\n\n a) e believes at the time of selection to be eligible to judge\n the CFJ or Appeal; and\n b) is not eligible to judge the CFJ or Appeal at the time of\n selection solely because e is turned;\n\n then that selection shall stand and the selected Player shall\n become a Judge of that CFJ or Appeal, as if e had been eligible\n to judge it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405246,'rcs','00000001.00000108',1458,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4525 (Murphy), 28 August 2003','The Notary','The Notary',1062442923,'Rule 1458/14 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s Weekly Report shall include the following\n information for each Organization:\n\n (i) its name;\n (ii) its Administrator;\n (iii) its Executor;\n (iv) its SLC\'s Maintainer; and\n (v) its Jurisdiction\'s Players.\n\n The Notary\'s Monthly Report shall include the Charter of each\n Organization.\n\n Also, as soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of\n any Organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n Organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that Organization.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2810 (Blob), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Oct. 12 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1458, Oct. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(10) by Propoal 01-002 (Blob), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4525 (Murphy), 28 August 2003'),(405247,'rcs','00000001.00000109',2052,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4526 (Steve), 8 September 2003','Voting Potential','Voting Potential',1063952323,'Rule 2052/1 (Power=2)\nVoting Potential\n\n (a) Associated with every Player is a non-negative integral\n number known as that Player\'s Voting Potential. At the\n beginning of each new month, every Player\'s Voting Potential\n is set to zero.\n\n (b) At any time, a Player may, by announcement, increase their\n Voting Potential by a positive integral amount, N. The Fee\n associated with this action is the Oligarchy Charge\n Requirement multiplied by N.\n\n (c) The Assessor is responsible for tracking these\n announcements, and recording Players\' Voting Potentials.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4526 (Steve), 8 September 2003'),(405248,'rcs','00000001.00000110',2040,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003','Switches','Switches',1063952766,'Rule 2040/1 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A switch is a set of states associated with a class of entities.\n Each switch shall have a default state, which if not otherwise\n specified shall be the first state mentioned in the rule\n defining the switch.\n\n The recordkeepor for a class of entities shall also maintain\n records of any switches associated with that class, as well as\n the current state of the switch for each entity of the class.\n If the recordkeepor is required to publish a report, that report\n shall include records of these switches. The rules may require\n a different player to maintain and report these records.\n\n Whenever an entity is created in a class of entities associated\n with a switch, it shall be in the state of the switch specified\n by the order or provision creating it; if no state is specified,\n it shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever an entity joins a class of entities associated with a\n switch, the entity shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n A player who may flip a switch on an entity to some state may do\n so by announcement. In eir announcement, e must indicate the\n entity, switch, and new state. When a switch on an entity is\n flipped to some state, the entity shall come to be in that state\n and simultaneously cease to be in any other state of the switch.\n\n A switch is loose unless the rules define it as stuck.\n\n An executor of an entity may flip any of the loose switches on\n that entity, unless the rules otherwise prohibit doing so.\n\n The stuck switches on an entity can be flipped only when the\n rules so indicate.\n\n Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class\n of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously\n been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue\n to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in\n the default state of the switch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003'),(405249,'rcs','00000001.00000110',1016,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003','Activity Levels','Activity Levels',1063952766,'Rule 1016/17 (Power=2)\nActivity Levels\n\n Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and\n inactive.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively.\n\n A player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the\n past week.\n\n Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate\n activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because\n of eir activity.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4400 (Pakaran), 23 October 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003'),(405250,'rcs','00000001.00000110',1840,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003','Political Status','Political Status',1063952766,'Rule 1840/4 (Power=2)\nPolitical Status\n\n Orthodoxy is a stuck player switch with values abiding and\n rebellious.\n\n A player may flip eir orthodoxy, unless e has done so during the\n current month.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Rebellious Player commits\n the Class 2 Infraction of Inciting to Riot (to be reported by\n the Registrar), unless all of the following are true at that\n time:\n\n i) The Registrar has not announced whether the last Call for\n Revolt succeeded or failed.\n ii) The Player was Rebellious at the time of the last Call for\n Revolt.\n iii) The Player has not changed from Abiding to Rebellious since\n the last Call for Revolt.\n\n in which case the Player is Hauled Into Kangaroo Court instead.\n\n When a Call for Revolt fails, each Player Hauled Into Kangaroo\n Court since the Call for Revolt commits the Infraction of\n Inciting to Riot, as defined above.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3737 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4096 (Elysion), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003'),(405251,'rcs','00000001.00000110',2035,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003','The Unready are Ineligible','The Unready are Ineligible',1063952766,'Rule 2035/1 (Power=2)\nThe Unready are Ineligible\n\n Whenever an unready player is unturned, e becomes turned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4397 (RedKnight), 17 October 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003'),(405252,'rcs','00000001.00000111',2048,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','Enlightenment','Enlightenment',1064220195,'Rule 2048/0 (Power=1)\nEnlightenment\n\n A Player (the Sensei) may, by public announcement, enlighten\n Agora by choosing two Players to be the Yin and the Yang\n respectively. Such enlightenment has the effect of decreasing\n the Yin\'s kudos by one and increasing the Yang\'s kudos by one,\n provided:\n (i) the Sensei has at least one kudo;\n (ii) the Sensei has not previously enlightened Agora in the\n current week;\n (iii) the Sensei is not the Yang;\n (iv) the Sensei gives eir reasons for choosing both the Yin and\n Yang for a lesson.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405253,'rcs','00000001.00000112',1941,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4528 (Goethe), 1 October 2003','Fees','Fees',1066025215,'Rule 1941/2 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or\n fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the\n specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next\n highest integer.\n\n To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is\n otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e\n is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for\n that action. Upon said announcement, the action is performed,\n the Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the fee, and Agora\'s kudos\n are increased by the fee.\n\n Any Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the\n Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the\n action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the\n attempted action.\n\n As soon as possible after such a challenge, the Herald shall\n confirm or deny whether the Actor possessed kudos equal to or\n greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action. If the\n Actor in fact possessed insufficient honor, or the honor of the\n Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort, the action\n shall be deemed to have not occurred and the kudos of the Actor\n (and Agora) shall be deemed to have not been changed by the fee.\n\n If a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days\n have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be\n permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge\n is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness.\n But in this case the Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is\n left with negative kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4528 (Goethe), 1 October 2003'),(405254,'rcs','00000001.00000113',1941,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4528 (Goethe), 2 October 2003','Fees','Fees',1066025257,'Rule 1941/2 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or\n fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the\n specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next\n highest integer.\n\n To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is\n otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e\n is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for\n that action. Upon said announcement, the action is performed,\n the Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the fee, and Agora\'s kudos\n are increased by the fee.\n\n Any Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the\n Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the\n action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the\n attempted action.\n\n As soon as possible after such a challenge, the Herald shall\n confirm or deny whether the Actor possessed kudos equal to or\n greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action. If the\n Actor in fact possessed insufficient honor, or the honor of the\n Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort, the action\n shall be deemed to have not occurred and the kudos of the Actor\n (and Agora) shall be deemed to have not been changed by the fee.\n\n If a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days\n have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be\n permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge\n is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness.\n But in this case the Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is\n left with negative kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4528 (Goethe), 2 October 2003'),(405255,'rcs','00000001.00000114',1791,'Created by Proposal 3700 (Swann), Mar. 19 1998','Ratification Without Objection','Ratification Without Objection',1066886421,'Rule 1791/0 (Power=1)\nRatification Without Objection\n\n Any Officer who holds an Office in Normal Fashion can Ratify an\n Official Report Without Objection, provided the following\n conditions hold;\n\n i) The Report to be Ratified is one that is legally\n permissible to Ratify.\n ii) The Report to be Ratified was produced by the Player\n holding the Office.\n iii) The Report to be Ratified is one that is required to be\n produced and maintained by the Officer.\n\n A Speaker who is not Tainted is permitted to Ratify any Official\n Report Without Objection provided that the Report is one legally\n permissible to Ratify.\n\n A COE on any Report undergoing this process shall be deemed by\n the Rules to constitute an Objection.\n\n[CFJ 1207 (14 April 2000) found that this rule allows a report to be\n ratified by an Officer, even in the face of Rule 1550, which requires\n that the only instrument capable of ratifying a report be a\n Proposal. In effect, Players are not instruments.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3700 (Swann), Mar. 19 1998'),(405256,'rcs','00000001.00000115',2058,'Created by Proposal 4532 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2003','Removing Oligarchs from the Oligarchy','Removing Oligarchs from the Oligarchy',1067233119,'Rule 2058/0 (Power=2)\nRemoving Oligarchs from the Oligarchy\n\n When the Rules direct the GWotO to remove a Player from the\n Oligarchy, the GWotO shall publicly announce:\n\n (i) the Oligarch to be removed;\n (ii) the reason for the removal; and\n (iii) the Rule that authorizes that reason.\n\n If this notice is correct, the named Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch as of the GWotO\'s announcement.\n\n The GWotO\'s announcement is to be made as soon as possible after\n the governing event happens, unless the governing Rule specifies\n a different time period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4532 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2003'),(405257,'rcs','00000001.00000115',1794,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',1067233119,'Rule 1794/6 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an\n Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is\n of the first class that matches.\n\n (a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the\n effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n\n (b) A Sentencing Order is an Order executed to impose the\n penalty for a Crime.\n\n (c) A Ticketing Order is an Order executed to impose the\n penalty for an Infraction.\n\n (d) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of\n Appeals.\n\n (e) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the\n course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.\n\n (f) An Administrative Order is an Order executed by an Officer\n in the course of performing the duties or privileges of\n that Office. For the purpose of this Rule, the Speaker is\n deemed to be an Office.\n\n (g) Any other Order is a Private Order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003'),(405258,'rcs','00000001.00000115',1742,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003','Agreements between Players','Agreements between Players',1067233119,'Rule 1742/3 (Power=1)\nAgreements between Players\n\n Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding under the rules. If such\n an agreement is subsequently broken, any player party to that\n agreement may then call a CFJ alleging that the agreement has\n been broken. If the judge of such a CFJ finds that the\n agreement was entered into with the intention that the agreement\n be binding under the rules, and that the agreement has in fact\n been broken, then e may order the breaching party to perform\n according to the agreement, or perform substitute acts that\n would fairly serve the interests of the agreement; e may further\n order the other parties of the agreement to perform such acts as\n may be necessary to preserve fairness and justice.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n If a CFJ alleging that an agreement has been broken is called by\n anyone who is not party to that agreement, then it lacks\n standing and shall be dismissed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003'),(405259,'rcs','00000001.00000115',1458,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003','The Notary','The Notary',1067233119,'Rule 1458/15 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Notary\'s weekly report shall include the following\n information for each organization:\n\n a) Its name.\n b) Its administrator.\n c) Its executor.\n d) The maintainer of its charter.\n e) A list of players within its jurisdiction.\n\n The Notary\'s monthly report shall include the charter of each\n organization.\n\n As soon as possible after the creation or dissolution of an\n organization, the Notary shall announce that fact. If an\n organization is created, the Notary shall announce the above\n information for that organization.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1575, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2810 (Blob), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Oct. 12 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1458, Oct. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(10) by Propoal 01-002 (Blob), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4525 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003'),(405260,'rcs','00000001.00000115',1539,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003','Regulations and Membership of Contests','Regulations and Membership of Contests',1067233119,'Rule 1539/4 (Power=1)\nRegulations and Membership of Contests\n\n The regulations of a contest may specify the following:\n\n a) How a contestmaster is replaced. No person may become\n contestmaster without eir consent. If left unspecified,\n the contestmaster cannot change while the contest exists.\n\n b) Restrictions on players to become contestants.\n\n c) Conditions under which contestants cease to be contestants.\n\n No player is bound to obey any regulation or combination of\n regulations that conflict with the Rules.\n\n A player becomes a contestant, or ceases to be a contestant, by\n notifying the contestmaster.\n\n A contestmaster may publicly resign at any time, at which time e\n ceases to be contestmaster.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2725, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4484 (OscarMeyr), 23 April 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003'),(405261,'rcs','00000001.00000115',2042,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4530 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2003','Team Wins','Team Wins',1067233119,'Rule 2042/5 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\n A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches\n the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win\n as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the\n announcement the Scorekeepor shall award the Boon of Teamwork to\n each Player in the winning Team.\n\n Later in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign\n the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;\n\n 1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the\n highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest\n Team Score.\n\n 2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the\n lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as\n evenly as possible among the Teams.\n\n 3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.\n\n If in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player\n or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable\n Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include\n the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.\n\n Upon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores and all\n Teams\' Scores are set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4491 (Peekee), 6 May 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4503 (Peekee), 15 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4530 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2003'),(405262,'rcs','00000001.00000116',1963,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1069307394,'Rule 1963/6 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect;\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; or\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003'),(405263,'rcs','00000001.00000116',1936,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003','Oligarchic Service','Oligarchic Service',1069307394,'Rule 1936/11 (Power=2)\nOligarchic Service\n\n (a) Any Player eligible to do so may become an Oligarch at any\n time, by announcing that they do so. The fee associated\n with this action is the Oligarchy Charge Requirement if the\n Player is not a Politician, and half the Oligarchy Charge\n Requirement if the Player is a Politician.\n\n (b) When a Player\'s Term of Service expires, the Grand Warden of\n the Oligarchy shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy.\n\n (c) An Oligarch may extend their term of service by a length of\n time equal to the Oligarchic Term at any time by\n announcement. The Fee associated with this action is the\n same as the fee for becoming an Oligarch.\n\n (d) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy is reponsible for tracking\n membership of the Oligarchy, and individual Oligarchs\' terms\n of service.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4000 (Steve), May 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4073 (Elysion), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 535[2001] (Elysion), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4371 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003'),(405264,'rcs','00000001.00000117',2059,'Created by Proposal 4537 (Murphy), 16 November 2003','Legality of Bonus Clauses','Legality of Bonus Clauses',1069308818,'Rule 2059/0 (Power=2)\nLegality of Bonus Clauses\n\n Advertising is a stuck proposal switch with values none,\n positive, negative.\n\n A player may pay 2 kudos to flip a proposal\'s advertising switch\n from none to another value, or from another value to none.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4537 (Murphy), 16 November 2003'),(405265,'rcs','00000001.00000117',2060,'Created by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003','Guy Fawkes Day','Guy Fawkes Day',1069308818,'Rule 2060/0 (Power=2)\nGuy Fawkes Day\n\n Any Proposal submitted on the Fifth of November shall become\n upon delivery Distributable, Democratic, Urgent, and Sane, rules\n to the contrary nonwithstanding.\n\n If a Proposal so submitted is subsequently adopted, the Assessor\n shall award the Proposer the Boon of A Penny.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003'),(405266,'rcs','00000001.00000117',1933,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1069308818,'Rule 1933/5 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and\n Democratic.\n\n Rules to the nonwithstanding, a Proposal can never be Ordinary\n if its Adoption Index is two (2) or greater.\n\n Every Proposals is initially Ordinary unless the above\n limitation applies to it, in which case it is initially\n Democratic. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as\n specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to\n two (2).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003'),(405267,'rcs','00000001.00000117',1950,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003','Voting Power','Voting Power',1069308818,'Rule 1950/6 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) An Oligarch: one;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n\n * A Player:\n (a) two plus that Player\'s Voting Potential if that\n Player is a non-Oligarch Politician;\n (b) one plus that Player\'s Voting Potential\n otherwise.\n\n * Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is an Oligarch at the time e casts eir vote.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003'),(405268,'rcs','00000001.00000118',2061,'Created by Proposal 4540, 23 November 2003','Boon of Zeitgeist','Boon of Zeitgeist',1069656700,'Rule 2061/0 (Power=1)\nBoon of Zeitgeist\n\n If an Interested Democratic Proposal passes, and no Votes were\n cast AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor the\n Boon of Zeitgeist.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4540, 23 November 2003'),(405269,'rcs','00000001.00000118',2055,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003','The Scorekeepor\'s Budget','The Scorekeepor\'s Budget',1069656700,'Rule 2055/1 (Power=1)\nThe Scorekeepor\'s Budget\n\n The Scorekeepor\'s Budget shall contain the following:\n\n a) The Team Points Goal, a positive integer.\n b) The Player Points Limit, a positive integer.\n c) Points Per Player, a positive integer.\n d) One or more scoring events, each with the following\n information:\n i) Whether it is an award or a penalty.\n ii) The amount of the award/penalty, a positive integer.\n iii) The conditions required for the event to occur.\n iv) A description of which player/team receives the\n award/penalty.\n\n Each scoring event in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget may cause the\n specified player/team to be awarded/penalized the specified\n number of points, as defined by other rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003'),(405270,'rcs','00000001.00000118',1929,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003','Points','Points',1069656700,'Rule 1929/7 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness,\n measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an\n integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since\n the last Team Win has a Score of zero Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)\n or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said\n event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the\n Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in\n the affected Player\'s Score.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific\n event\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is invalid and points do not change.\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged\n later, then the player may be penalized/awarded a number of\n points equal to the original award/penalty.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Propsoal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4180 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4467 (OscarMyer), 17 March 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003'),(405271,'rcs','00000001.00000118',1990,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003','Points Contests','Points Contests',1069656700,'Rule 1990/5 (Power=1)\nPoints Contests\n\n A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states\n that it is a Points Contest. A Player may not be the\n Contestmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Agoran\n month.\n\n The Players Points Limit and Points Per Player are as set in the\n Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\n Once during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a\n Points Contest\'s Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of\n Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest\'s\n Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be\n awarded to each Contestant on the list. Different Contestants\n may be awarded different numbers of points in the same\n listing. The posting must obey all regulations for such posting\n contained in the Contest\'s SLC to be valid.\n\n The total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each\n such monthly Notice may not exceed Points Per Player times the\n number of Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any\n time in the 14 days prior to the Notice. If more points than\n this are listed the Notice is invalid.\n\n The total number of Points that a single Player may receive from\n all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed the Players\n Points Limit. If a Points Contest Notice would bring a Player\'s\n total to more points than this than the Notice is invalid for\n that Player only.\n\n The posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event\n Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4191 (Goethe), 18 July 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4357 (Sir Toby), 16 August 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4492 (Peekee), 6 May 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003'),(405272,'rcs','00000001.00000118',2053,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003','Team Points, Team Scores','Team Points, Team Scores',1069656700,'Rule 2053/1 (Power=1)\nTeam Points, Team Scores\n\n A Team Score is at all times an integer. The Team Score of a\n Team is the total sum of all Points of all Players grouped into\n that Team, plus the Team\'s Team Points.\n\n A Team who has not been Awarded or Penalized since the last Team\n Win has zero Team Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Team to be Awarded or Penalised Team Points. If said event\n occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award\n or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the\n affected Team Points.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific\n event\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is invalid and points do not change.\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged\n later, then the team may be penalized/awarded a number of points\n equal to the original award/penalty.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003'),(405273,'rcs','00000001.00000119',2062,'Created by Proposal 4544 (OscarMeyr), 16 December 2003','Team Captains','Team Captains',1071637036,'Rule 2062/0 (Power=1)\nTeam Captains\n\n Leadership is a loose Team switch with values null and each of\n the Team\'s Members. The Scorekeepor shall maintain and report\n records for this switch.\n\n If a Team\'s leadership is null, any Member of that Team may flip\n the Team\'s leadership, Without Objection from the other Members\n of that Team.\n\n If a Team\'s leadership is non-null, the leadership identifies\n the Team Captain, who is the Executor of that Team. The Captain\n may flip eir Team\'s leadership without restriction; any other\n Member of the Team may flip the Team\'s leadership with N\n Supporters, where N + 1 is the minimal majority of that Team\'s\n Members.\n\n If the Team Captain ceases to be a member of the Team, that\n Team\'s leadership becomes null.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4544 (OscarMeyr), 16 December 2003'),(405274,'rcs','00000001.00000120',1870,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4548 (Magu), 13 January 2004','Merry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!','Merry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!',1074488097,'Rule 1870/3 (Power=1)\nMerry Christmas, Agora, And A Happy New Year!\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n There exists a Boon known as Shiny New Toy, and an Albatross\n known as Lump of Coal. For the purposes of this rule, Players\n with a Stain of at least one Blot are known as Naughty, and\n Players with a Stain of less than one Blot are known as Nice.\n\n As soon as possible after the conclusion of the Holiday\n described above, the Herald shall award a Shiny New Toy to each\n Nice Player, and a Lump of Coal to each Naughty player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3819 (Steve), Dec. 28 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4548 (Magu), 13 January 2004'),(405275,'rcs','00000001.00000120',2042,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4547 (Sherlock), 13 January 2004','Team Wins','Team Wins',1074488097,'Rule 2042/6 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\n A Team achieves a Team Win when its Team Score reaches reaches\n the Team Points Goal, as set in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\n The Scorekeepor shall make a public announcement of the Team Win\n as soon as possible after the Team Win is achieved. In the\n announcement the Scorekeepor shall award the Boon of Teamwork to\n each Player in the winning Team.\n\n Later in the same announcement the Scorekeepor shall reassign\n the grouping of Players into Teams as follows;\n\n 1) The Player with the highest Score in the Team with the\n highest Team Score is assigned to the Team with the lowest\n Team Score.\n\n 2) The Player who has the lowest Score in the Team with the\n lowest Team Score is assigned as to distribute the players as\n evenly as possible among the Teams.\n\n 3) All other Players remain assigned to the same Teams.\n\n If in any of the above there is a choice of more than one Player\n or Team, the Scorekeepor shall choose between the applicable\n Players or Teams as e sees fit. The Scorekeepor shall include\n the details of the reassignments in eir announcement.\n\n The Scorekeepor may rename any Team in this announcement, if e\n chooses to do so. That Team shall be known by its new name\n henceforth.\n\n Upon the Scorekeepor\'s announcement, all Players\' Scores and all\n Teams\' Scores are set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4491 (Peekee), 6 May 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4503 (Peekee), 15 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4530 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4547 (Sherlock), 13 January 2004'),(405276,'rcs','00000001.00000121',2061,'Created by Proposal 4540 (Murphy), 23 November 2003','Boon of Zeitgeist','Boon of Zeitgeist',1075870785,'Rule 2061/0 (Power=1)\nBoon of Zeitgeist\n\n If an Interested Democratic Proposal passes, and no Votes were\n cast AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor the\n Boon of Zeitgeist.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4540 (Murphy), 23 November 2003'),(405277,'rcs','00000001.00000121',2013,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4550 (Goethe), 24 January 2004','Champion\'s Contests','Champion\'s Contests',1075870785,'Rule 2013/1 (Power=1)\nChampion\'s Contests\n\n If no Champion\'s Contest exists, the Scorekeepor or the Speaker\n may, with 2 Support, name an existing Contest to be a Champion\'s\n Contest. The namers are encouraged to select Contests that they\n feel would give the maximum enjoyment to Agorans as a whole, and\n give preference to Contests run by Players who were members of\n the most recently winning team.\n\n The Contestmaster of a Champion\'s Contest ceases to be a member\n of any team, rules to the contrary nonwithstanding. If e ceases\n to be Contestmaster of a Champion\'s Contest, e shall be assigned\n to a team as if e were a new Player.\n\n Each Champion\'s Contest begins with zero awardable points, as\n tracked by the Scorekeepor. At the beginning of each month, the\n Contest\'s awardable points are increased by the Champion\'s Grant\n contained in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget.\n\n A Champion\'s Contest Contestmaster may publish a Notice of\n Award, listing a positive number of Points to be awarded to a\n team or teams. The posting must obey all regulations for such\n posting contained in the Contest\'s SLC, and award no more than\n the Contest\'s awardable points, to be valid.\n\n The effect of a valid Notice of Award is to increase the named\n teams\' points as indicated, and decrease the Contest\'s awardable\n points by the same amount.\n\n When a Team Win occurs, any Champion\'s Contest ceases to be a\n Champion\'s Contest and loses all awardable points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4253 (Goethe), 19 February 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4550 (Goethe), 24 January 2004'),(405278,'rcs','00000001.00000125',1664,'Amended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004','Rebellion','Rebellion',1080129234,'Rule 1664/23 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - The GWotO shall remove all Abiding Oligarchs from the\n Oligarchy\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status, Oligarchy membership of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004'),(405279,'rcs','00000001.00000125',1446,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004','Contests','Contests',1080129234,'Rule 1446/15 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Each Contest is an Organization associated with an SLC\n called its Regulations. The Administrator for each Contest\n is that Contest\'s Contestmaster, and the Players within\n the Jurisdiction of its SLC, other than the Contestmaster,\n are its Contestants.\n\n Any Player is permitted to be a Contestant or a Contestmaster of\n any Contest, unless that would conflict with that Contest\'s\n Regulations, or the Rules. A Contest must have exactly one\n Foundor, who becomes the Contest\'s initial Contestmaster.\n\n The ACO to create a Contest must be published to have effect.\n\n[CFJ 760: If the Regulations specify that the position of\n Contestmaster is to be vacated, that is without effect.\n CFJ 800: A Contest need not be a game in the strict sense of the\n word.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1509, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1574, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1670, Aug. 18 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2401, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2562, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2584, May 1 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), Jun. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004'),(405280,'rcs','00000001.00000126',1664,'Amended(24) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','Rebellion','Rebellion',1080131817,'Rule 1664/24 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - The Lobbying Strength of each Abiding Player is set to 0\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405281,'rcs','00000001.00000126',1955,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy','The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy',1080131817,'Rule 1955/9 (Power=1)\nThe Grand Warden of the Oligarchy\n\n (a) The Grand Warden of the Oligarchy (GWotO) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor of Oligarchs.\n\n (b) The GWotO\'s Weekly Report shall include a list of all\n Oligarchs, the membership of each Player\'s Coalition, the\n Potency and Lobbying Strength of each Player, the identity\n of the Speaker, and the date of the next quarterly Speaker\n transition.\n\n (c) The GWotO shall have a budget containing the Political\n Charge, which is a positive integer less than 10, and the\n Potency Threshold, which is a positive integer less than 10.\n\n (d) The GWotO may Without 2 Objections from Oligarchs replace\n the budget with a proto-budget e publishes when e announces\n eir intent to do so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4259 (root), 22 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4307 (Steve), 28 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405282,'rcs','00000001.00000126',2063,'Created by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','Coalitions','Coalitions',1080131817,'Rule 2063/0 (Power=2)\nCoalitions\n\n Each Player shall have associated with them a list known as that\n Player\'s Coalition. A Coalition consists of a set (possibly\n null) of registered Players. At any time, a player may be a\n member of at most one Coalition. A player may be a member of eir\n own Coalition. Whenever a member of a Coalition ceases to be a\n Player, e is removed from that Coalition.\n\n A Player may join a Coalition by announcing e does so and\n specifying which Coalition e is joining, provided e has not\n successfully made such an announcement in the past week and is\n not currently a member of another Coalition. A Player may leave\n a Coalition e is a member of by announcing e does so.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405283,'rcs','00000001.00000126',2064,'Created by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','Potency and Lobbying','Potency and Lobbying',1080131817,'Rule 2064/0 (Power=2)\nPotency and Lobbying\n\n Each Player has two associated non-negative integral numbers\n known as that Player\'s Potency and Lobbying Strength.\n\n A Player\'s Potency is equal to the sum of the Lobbying Strengths\n of the members of eir Coalition.\n\n At any time, a Player may, by announcement, increase their\n Lobbying Strength by a positive integral amount, N. The Fee\n associated with this action is the Political Charge multiplied\n by N, or half that amount (rounded up) if the Player is a\n Politician.\n\n At the beginning of each new month, every Player\'s Lobbying\n Strength is set to 1. Whenever a Player registers, eir Lobbying\n Strength is set to 1.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405284,'rcs','00000001.00000126',1932,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','Oligarchs and the Oligarchy','Oligarchs and the Oligarchy',1080131817,'Rule 1932/5 (Power=2)\nOligarchs and the Oligarchy\n\n Class is a stuck player switch with values Plebeian and\n Oligarch. A Plebeian may flip eir class if eir Potency is\n greater than or equal to the Potency Threshold. An Oligarch may\n flip eir class at any time.\n\n The Oligarchy is the set of all Players who are Oligarchs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405285,'rcs','00000001.00000126',1963,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1080131817,'Rule 1963/7 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect;\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; or\n (6) eir Potency is less than the Potency Threshold and has\n been continuously so for at least five days;\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405286,'rcs','00000001.00000126',2058,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','Removing Oligarchs from the Oligarchy','Removing Oligarchs from the Oligarchy',1080131817,'Rule 2058/1 (Power=2)\nRemoving Oligarchs from the Oligarchy\n\n When the Rules direct the GWotO to remove a Player from the\n Oligarchy, the GWotO shall publicly announce:\n\n (i) the Oligarch to be removed;\n (ii) the reason for the removal; and\n (iii) the Rule that authorizes that reason.\n\n If this notice is correct, the named Player\'s class is flipped\n to Plebeian as of the GWotO\'s announcement.\n\n The GWotO\'s announcement is to be made as soon as possible after\n the governing event happens, unless the governing Rule specifies\n a different time period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4532 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405287,'rcs','00000001.00000126',2052,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004','Voting Potential','Voting Potential',1080131817,'Rule 2052/2 (Power=2)\nVoting Potential\n\n (a) Associated with every Player is a non-negative integral\n number known as that Player\'s Voting Potential. At the\n beginning of each new month, every Player\'s Voting Potential\n is set to zero.\n\n (b) At any time, a Player may, by announcement, increase their\n Voting Potential by a positive integral amount, N. The Fee\n associated with this action is the Political Charge\n multiplied by N.\n\n (c) The Assessor is responsible for tracking these\n announcements, and recording Players\' Voting Potentials.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4526 (Steve), 8 September 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004'),(405288,'rcs','00000001.00000126',1922,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1080131817,'Rule 1922/6 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\n (e) Admiral, to be awarded to a Team Captain when eir Team\n achieves a Team Win.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004'),(405289,'rcs','00000001.00000127',1960,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4561 (Sherlock), 22 March 2004','Roles','Roles',1080132501,'Rule 1960/4 (Power=1)\nRoles\n\n Role is a stuck player switch with values null, Acolyte, Patron,\n Politician, and Scribe.\n\n A player may flip eir role if one of the following is true:\n\n a) Eir role is null.\n\n b) E has not changed eir role in the past three months.\n\n c) E has not changed eir role in the past six weeks, and e pays\n a fee of 2 kudos for the purpose of making this change.\n\n d) E pays a fee of 6 kudos for the purpose of making this\n change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4175 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4561 (Sherlock), 22 March 2004'),(405290,'rcs','00000001.00000127',2065,'Created by Proposal 4561 (Sherlock), 22 March 2004','Role-Based Powers','Role-Based Powers',1080132501,'Rule 2065/0 (Power=1)\nRole-Based Powers\n\n For Acolytes, Absolving an entity is a progressive action.\n Absolving an entity expunges 1 Blot from that entity.\n\n For Patrons, Donating to a Team is a progressive Action. The\n effect of Donating to a Team is to increase that Team\'s Team\n Points by 5.\n\n For Politicians, Debating an Undistributed Proposal is a\n progressive Action. The effect of Debating a Proposal is to\n change its Chamber to one named by the Politician, provided it\n is legal for that Proposal to be in the named Chamber and the\n Proposal is not Sane.\n\n For Scribes, Rubberstamping a Proposal is a progressive action.\n A Rubberstamped Proposal becomes Distributable.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4561 (Sherlock), 22 March 2004'),(405291,'rcs','00000001.00000127',2059,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4562 (root), 22 March 2004','Legality of Bonus Clauses','Legality of Bonus Clauses',1080132501,'Rule 2059/1 (Power=2)\nLegality of Bonus Clauses\n\n Advertising is a stuck proposal switch with values none,\n positive, negative.\n\n A player may pay 2 kudos to flip the advertising switch of any\n proposal in the pool from none to another value, or from another\n value to none.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4537 (Murphy), 16 November 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4562 (root), 22 March 2004'),(405292,'rcs','00000001.00000129',889,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1083048101,'Rule 889/12 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004'),(405293,'rcs','00000001.00000129',1871,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004','Turns for All','Turns for All',1083048101,'Rule 1871/4 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and\n turned.\n\n Whenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any\n future CFJs.\n\n Whenever there are no players eligible to be Trial Judge of a\n CFJ, all turned players become unturned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004'),(405294,'rcs','00000001.00000129',2066,'Created by Proposal 4564 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004','The Silent are Ineligible','The Silent are Ineligible',1083048101,'Rule 2066/0 (Power=1)\nThe Silent are Ineligible\n\n When a Player becomes Silent, e becomes turned.\n\n Whenever a Silent Player becomes unturned, e becomes turned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4564 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004'),(405295,'rcs','00000001.00000129',559,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004','The Registrar','The Registrar',1083048101,'Rule 559/22 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Weekly Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent;\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and\n\n (viii) a list of players who are Monks.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004'),(405296,'rcs','00000001.00000129',2055,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4565 (Goethe), 6 April 2004','The Scorekeepor\'s Budget','The Scorekeepor\'s Budget',1083048101,'Rule 2055/2 (Power=1)\nThe Scorekeepor\'s Budget\n\n The Scorekeepor\'s Budget shall contain the following:\n\n a) The Team Points Goal, a positive integer.\n b) The Champion\'s Grant, a positive integer.\n c) One or more scoring events, each with the following\n information:\n i) Whether it is an award or a penalty.\n ii) The amount of the award/penalty, a positive integer.\n iii) The conditions required for the event to occur.\n iv) A description of which player/team receives the\n award/penalty.\n\n Each scoring event in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget may cause the\n specified player/team to be awarded/penalized the specified\n number of points, as defined by other rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4565 (Goethe), 6 April 2004'),(405297,'rcs','00000001.00000129',1377,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004','The Herald','The Herald',1083048101,'Rule 1377/18 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004'),(405298,'rcs','00000001.00000130',2055,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4566 (Goethe), 11 April 2004','The Scorekeepor\'s Budget','The Scorekeepor\'s Budget',1083048348,'Rule 2055/3 (Power=1)\nThe Scorekeepor\'s Budget\n\n The Scorekeepor\'s Budget shall contain the following:\n\n a) The Team Points Goal, a positive integer.\n b) The Champion\'s Grant, a positive integer.\n c) One or more scoring events, each with the following\n information:\n i) Whether it is an award or a penalty.\n ii) The amount of the award/penalty, a positive integer.\n iii) The conditions required for the event to occur.\n iv) A description of which player/team receives the\n award/penalty.\n\n Each scoring event in the Scorekeepor\'s Budget may cause the\n specified player/team to be awarded/penalized the specified\n number of points, as defined by other rules.\n\n If no Team Score is greater than half the Team Points Goal,\n then:\n (a) Any Player may amend the Scorekeepor\'s budget by adding\n a valid scoring event, provided e does so both without\n Objection from the Scorekeepor and with Support from a\n member of a different team;\n\n (b) The Scorekeepor may amend the budget by adding,\n removing, or changing scoring events, provided e does so\n both without 3 Objections and with Support from a member\n of a different team.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4565 (Goethe), 6 April 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4566 (Goethe), 11 April 2004'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (405299,'rcs','00000001.00000131',1963,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4568 (Maud), 27 April 2004','Eligible Oligarchs','Eligible Oligarchs',1084269535,'Rule 1963/8 (Power=2)\nEligible Oligarchs\n\n (a) A Player is ineligible to be an Oligarch if and only if any\n of the following are true:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker;\n (4) e is the Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect; or\n (5) e is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy.\n (6) eir Potency is less than the Potency Threshold and has\n been continuously so for at least five days;\n\n (b) If an Oligarch becomes ineligible to be an Oligarch, the\n GWotO shall remove that Player from the Oligarchy.\n\n (c) An Oligarch who ceases to be a Player ceases to be an\n Oligarch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4568 (Maud), 27 April 2004'),(405300,'rcs','00000001.00000132',1933,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4570 (Elysion), 2 May 2004','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1084270457,'Rule 1933/6 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and\n Democratic.\n\n An Ordinary Proposal with Adoption Index of two (2) or greater\n is a Stalled Proposal. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a\n Stalled Proposal may not be distributed. If a proposal is\n distributed that was Stalled at the time of distribution, the\n Promotor shall abort it as soon as possible.\n\n Every Proposal is initially Democratic, unless its Adoption\n Index is less than two (2), in which case it is initially\n Ordinary. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as\n specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to\n two (2).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4570 (Elysion), 2 May 2004'),(405301,'rcs','00000001.00000132',2067,'Created by Proposal 4569 (Wes), 2 May 2004','Cards in Play','Cards in Play',1084270457,'Rule 2067/0 (Power=1)\nCards in Play\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Distrib-u-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.\n\n * Caption: Absolv-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Limited [Immaculate Players] [1]\n Exploit: Expunge one Blot from any one entity.\n\n * Caption: Debate-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to\n the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that\n Proposal to be in the named Chamber.\n\n * Caption: Boost-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Increase any one Team\'s Team Points by 5.\n Exploit: Increase any one Team\'s Team Points by 10 for a Fee\n of 1 Kudo.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4569 (Wes), 2 May 2004'),(405302,'rcs','00000001.00000133',2068,'Created by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004','The Deckmastor','The Deckmastor',1086087946,'Rule 2068/0 (Power=1)\nThe Deckmastor\n\n The Deckmastor is an office which acts as the recordkeepor for\n Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of\n all Cards in existence and what entity possesses each Card.\n\n The Deckmastor shall have a budget containing the Maximum Hand\n Size, which is a positive integer between 3 and 10. In the\n absence of a budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall be 5.\n\n The Deck is a Gambler. The Deckmastor shall be the sole Executor\n of The Deck, but may take no action on behalf of The Deck except\n as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The Deck may not transfer\n Cards to any other entity except as explicitly required by the\n Rules.\n\n Only the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards, and e may do if\n and only if the Rules require it by announcing the Card being\n created or destroyed and the entity who either possesses it now\n or possessed it at the time of destruction as appropriate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004'),(405303,'rcs','00000001.00000133',2069,'Created by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1086087946,'Rule 2069/0 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Definitions\n\n The Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a\n Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All\n Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each\n individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy\n of that Class of Card.\n\n (a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of\n Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.\n\n (b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time\n fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then\n the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the\n possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a\n Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor\n shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The\n Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the\n Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.\n\n (c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall\n have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the\n Element of that name shall behave according to the\n description associated with that Element. An Element not\n defined in the Rules has no effect.\n\n (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and\n only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e\n meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in\n that Exploit. Any reference to \"you,\" \"your\" or a similar\n pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of\n that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known\n as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is\n automatically transferred to The Deck immediately after\n being Played.\n\n III. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n Discarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card\n to The Deck.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made.\n\n A Gambler may Draw from The Deck for a Fee equal to the\n number of times that Gambler has previously Drawn from the\n Deck during the current month so long as the Gambler\'s Hand\n Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004'),(405304,'rcs','00000001.00000133',2070,'Created by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004','Card Powerz','Card Powerz',1086087946,'Rule 2070/0 (Power=1)\nCard Powerz\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the\n Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not\n set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.\n\n * Handed [X], where X is a non-negative integer: When\n calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.\n\n * Restricted [X], where X is a type of entity: Only entities\n considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by\n the Card.\n\n * Limited [X] [Y], where X is a type of entity and Y is a\n positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to\n Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay\n a Fee of Y.\n\n * Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being\n transferred to The Deck.\n\n * Bleed [X], where X is a non-negative integer: At the beginning\n of each week, the Holder of this card loses X Points.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004'),(405305,'rcs','00000001.00000133',2071,'Created by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1086087946,'Rule 2071/0 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: ZOT!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [3]\n Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses\n (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have\n fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Point Mine\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the\n current week, you may gain 1 Point.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Dud Fusion\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Bleed [2]\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20\n Points.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\" with\n 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of\n Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004'),(405306,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1905,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','The Cabinet','The Cabinet',1086089636,'Rule 1905/2 (Power=1)\nThe Cabinet\n\n The Cabinet, or Inner Cabinet, consists of the Speaker and all\n electees to office. The Outer Cabinet consists of all\n Shareholders who are not members of the Inner Cabinet.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405307,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1664,'Amended(25) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Rebellion','Rebellion',1086089636,'Rule 1664/25 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - All Stock Cards in the possession of Abiding Players are\n returned to the Deck\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(25) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405308,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1975,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','The Assistant Director of Personnel','The Assistant Director of Personnel',1086089636,'Rule 1975/4 (Power=1)\nThe Assistant Director of Personnel\n\n The Assistant Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is\n responsible for holding elections for offices.\n\n The ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all offices;\n\n (b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on\n which e most recently became electee to that office;\n\n (c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not\n the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date\n on which e most recently became holder of that office;\n\n (d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for\n that office ends, or an indication that the office is held\n in perpetuity;\n\n (e) the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next\n quarterly Speaker transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4267 (root), 22 March 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405309,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1932,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1086089636,'Rule 1932/6 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Shares [X], where X is a positive integer. The Holder is\n considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other\n Cards).\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: One Share\n Elements: Budgeted, Bleed [2], Shares [1]\n\n * Caption: Two Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Bleed [4], Shares [2]\n\n * Caption: Three Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Bleed [6], Shares [3]\n\n * Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Shareholders] [3]\n Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned\n to the Deck.\n\n All cards with the Element \"Shares [X]\" are cumulatively known\n as the Stock Cards.\n\n An entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares\n possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings\n of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share\n Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The\n Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405310,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1963,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Eligible Shareholders','Eligible Shareholders',1086089636,'Rule 1963/9 (Power=2)\nEligible Shareholders\n\n A Player is an Eligible Shareholder unless:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e has fewer than zero points;\n (4) e is the Speaker; or\n (5) e is the Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4568 (Maud), 27 April 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405311,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1950,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Voting Power','Voting Power',1086089636,'Rule 1950/8 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n\n * A Player:\n (a) two plus that Player\'s Voting Potential if that\n Player has zero Share Holdings.\n (b) one plus that Player\'s Voting Potential\n otherwise.\n\n * Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is a Shareholder at the time e casts eir vote.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405312,'rcs','00000001.00000134',2019,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1086089636,'Rule 2019/1 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n At any time during the Voting Period of an Ordinary Proposal,\n the Speaker may Veto that Proposal with the Support of one-third\n of all Shareholders, rounded down.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405313,'rcs','00000001.00000134',879,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Quorum','Quorum',1086089636,'Rule 879/20 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n shareholders cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto\n it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405314,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1965,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Complacent Corporation','Complacent Corporation',1086089636,'Rule 1965/3 (Power=2)\nComplacent Corporation\n\n As soon as possible after an ordinary proposal fails quorum, the\n Assessor shall publish a Notice of Complacency to that effect.\n In addition, at any time during the voting period of an ordinary\n proposal for which the number of entities eligible to vote on\n the proposal is less than the quorum of the proposal, the\n Assessor may immediately publish a Notice of Complacency without\n waiting for the proposal\'s voting period to end.\n\n Upon publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency for\n a proposal, the proposal is immediately aborted. In addition,\n the copy of the proposal that is added to the proposal pool as a\n result of the abortion becomes democratic and distributable.\n\n Publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency not\n strictly authorized or required by this rule is the Class 2\n Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4161 (Steve), 5 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4487 (root), 28 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405315,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1450,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Speaker Cannot Stay ADoP, CotC or Justiciar','Speaker Cannot Stay ADoP, CotC or Justiciar',1086089636,'Rule 1450/3 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Cannot Stay ADoP, CotC or Justiciar\n\n If at any time the Speaker shall be the Electee to any of the\n Office of ADoP, the Office of CotC, or the Office of Justiciar,\n e shall be retired from whichever of those Offices e is Electee\n to.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405316,'rcs','00000001.00000134',1647,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','The Speaker-Elect','The Speaker-Elect',1086089636,'Rule 1647/11 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker-Elect\n\n The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the\n Speaker\'s successor.\n\n Whenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be\n Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of\n Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of\n Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that\n Office.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts, Justiciar and Assistant Director of\n Personnel cannot be Nominated for the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the\n Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the\n Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as\n defined by other Rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the\n characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2681, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4246 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4429 (The Goddess Eris), 16 January 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405317,'rcs','00000001.00000134',402,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004','Speaker Transition','Speaker Transition',1086089636,'Rule 402/10 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Transition\n\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences,\n the Assistant Director of Personnel shall publish a Notice of\n Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition\n and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time\n the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004'),(405318,'rcs','00000001.00000136',2024,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1090823106,'Rule 2024/1 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement submitted in a\n single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked\n CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible\n to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned\n as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.\n\n The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs are Excess CFJs, then the Clerk of\n the Courts shall either assign them all or dismiss them all, at\n eir discretion. If e assigns them all, then e does not commit\n Allowing Excess CFJing by doing so, Rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in\n subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those\n CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those\n CFJs. The Clerk of the Courts shall either treat those CFJs as\n Linked (to each other) or not Linked, as e sees fit. In either\n case, those CFJs are no longer Linked to any of the non-remanded\n CFJs.\n\n If a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to\n be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from\n two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, then those CFJs\n continue to be Linked to each other, but not to any other CFJs\n to which the Judge is still assigned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004'),(405319,'rcs','00000001.00000136',2035,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004','The Unready and Unnoisy are Ineligible','The Unready and Unnoisy are Ineligible',1090823106,'Rule 2035/2 (Power=2)\nThe Unready and Unnoisy are Ineligible\n\n While a player is unready, e is ineligible to be Judge of any\n CFJ.\n\n While a player is not noisy, e is ineligible to become Judge of\n any CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4397 (RedKnight), 17 October 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004'),(405320,'rcs','00000001.00000136',2032,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004','Errors in Judge Selection','Errors in Judge Selection',1090823106,'Rule 2032/2 (Power=1)\nErrors in Judge Selection\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a\n Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal, who:\n\n a) e believes at the time of selection to be eligible to judge\n the CFJ or Appeal; and\n b) is not eligible to judge the CFJ or Appeal at the time of\n selection solely because e is turned;\n\n then that selection shall stand and the selected Player shall\n become a Judge of that CFJ or Appeal, as if e had been eligible\n to judge it; unless the Clerk of the Courts points out eir error\n and makes a new selection before the selected Player returns\n Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004'),(405321,'rcs','00000001.00000136',911,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1090823106,'Rule 911/12 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible.\n d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by\n the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible\n Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n v) E is not Active.\n\n An Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (ROnald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004'),(405322,'rcs','00000001.00000137',1933,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4590 (Elysion), 4 July 2004','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1090823973,'Rule 1933/7 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and\n Democratic.\n\n An Ordinary Proposal with Adoption Index of two (2) or greater\n is a Stalled Proposal. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a\n Proposal is Undistributable while it is Stalled. If a proposal\n is distributed that was Stalled at the time of distribution, the\n Promotor shall abort it as soon as possible.\n\n Every Proposal is initially Democratic, unless its Adoption\n Index is less than two (2), in which case it is initially\n Ordinary. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as\n specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to\n two (2).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4570 (Elysion), 2 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4590 (Elysion), 4 July 2004'),(405323,'rcs','00000001.00000137',1958,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4589 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','Nominating with Budgets','Nominating with Budgets',1090823973,'Rule 1958/2 (Power=1)\nNominating with Budgets\n\n (a) If an office has a budget, then a nomination in an election\n for that office is not valid unless a valid proto-budget is\n associated with it.\n\n (b) A proto-budget submitted by a nominee during the nominating\n period is associated with that nominee\'s nomination. A\n proto-budget is valid if it would be valid as a budget.\n\n (c) If a nominee for an Office fails to submit a valid\n proto-budget during the nominating period, then by default\n eir nomination is associated with a proto-budget identical\n to the current budget for that Office. If the current\n budget is not valid, tough cookies.\n\n (d) As soon as possible after the end of the nominating period,\n the vote collector shall announce each candidate\'s last\n valid proto-budget.\n\n (e) When the election ends, the winner\'s last valid proto-budget\n becomes the budget of that office, and the winner shall\n announce it as soon as possible. If the election ends\n without a winner, then the existing budget remains in\n effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4054 (Oerjan), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4480 (Steve), 23 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4589 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405324,'rcs','00000001.00000137',1450,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','Judicial Separation','Judicial Separation',1090823973,'Rule 1450/4 (Power=1)\nJudicial Separation\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Clerk of the\n Courts, e is retired from that Office.\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Justiciar, e is\n retired from that Office.\n\n Whenever a Player is both Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar, e\n is removed from the Office of Justiciar.\n\n Neither the Speaker, the Justiciar, nor a nominee for Justiciar\n may be nominated for Clerk of the Courts.\n\n Neither the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, nor a nominee for\n Clerk of the Courts may be nominated for Justiciar.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405325,'rcs','00000001.00000137',910,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','The Justiciar','The Justiciar',1090823973,'Rule 910/11 (Power=1)\nThe Justiciar\n\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice and for serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 910, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1581, May 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2569, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405326,'rcs','00000001.00000138',1550,'Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial','Ratification by Proposal','Ratification by Proposal',1090824645,'Rule 1550/2 (Power=1)\nRatification by Proposal\n\n Any Official Document (as specified in other Rules) may be\n ratified by the operation of an adopted Proposal (but no other\n sort of instrument). The instrument must specify an Official\n Document (as specified in other Rules) which is subject to\n ratification.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial'),(405327,'rcs','00000001.00000138',1871,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','Turns for All','Turns for All',1090824645,'Rule 1871/5 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and\n turned.\n\n Whenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any\n future CFJs.\n\n Whenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and\n there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall publish a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least\n one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players\n become unturned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405328,'rcs','00000001.00000138',2071,'Created by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1090824645,'Rule 2071/0 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: ZOT!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [3]\n Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses\n (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have\n fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Point Mine\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the\n current week, you may gain 1 Point.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Dud Fusion\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Bleed [2]\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20\n Points.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\" within\n 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction of\n Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004'),(405329,'rcs','00000001.00000138',1647,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','The Speaker-Elect','The Speaker-Elect',1090824645,'Rule 1647/12 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker-Elect\n\n The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the\n Speaker\'s successor.\n\n Whenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be\n Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of\n Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of\n Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that\n Office.\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the\n Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the\n Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as\n defined by other Rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the\n characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2681, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4246 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4429 (The Goddess Eris), 16 January 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405330,'rcs','00000001.00000138',2073,'Created by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?','Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?',1090824645,'Rule 2073/0 (Power=1)\nQuis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Assistant\n Director of Personnel, e is retired from that Office.\n\n The Assistant Director of Personnel cannot be Nominated for the\n Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405331,'rcs','00000001.00000139',2071,'Created by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1090824702,'Rule 2071/0 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: ZOT!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [3]\n Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses\n (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have\n fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Point Mine\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the\n current week, you may gain 1 Point.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Dud Fusion\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Bleed [2]\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20\n Points.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004'),(405332,'rcs','00000001.00000140',1933,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1090825450,'Rule 1933/8 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Chamber is a stuck switch for Proposals with values Ordinary and\n Democratic.\n\n An Ordinary Proposal with Adoption Index of two (2) or greater\n is a Stalled Proposal. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a\n Proposal is Undistributable while it is Stalled. If a proposal\n is distributed that was Stalled at the time of distribution, the\n Promotor shall abort it as soon as possible.\n\n Every Proposal is initially Democratic, unless its Adoption\n Index is less than two (2), in which case it is initially\n Ordinary. The Chamber of a Proposal may only be changed as\n specified by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to\n two (2).\n\n Whenever a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed while the Proposal is\n in its Voting Period, it is Aborted as described elsewhere and\n returned to the Proposal Pool with its Distributability and\n other characteristics intact.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4570 (Elysion), 2 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4590 (Elysion), 4 July 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004'),(405333,'rcs','00000001.00000140',2021,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004','Chamber Procedure','Chamber Procedure',1090825450,'Rule 2021/4 (Power=2)\nChamber Procedure\n\n (a) The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is a Fee for changing the\n Chamber of a Proposal. For any given Proposal, the Chamber\n Fee is initially 1. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed\n via this Rule, the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled.\n\n (b) An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitise a\n Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which\n the Voting Period has not ended. If the Speaker Sanitises a\n Proposal, the Proposal is Aborted as described elsewhere;\n the Proposal remains Distributable, but becomes Democratic\n and Sane.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004'),(405334,'rcs','00000001.00000140',2047,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004','Kudos','Kudos',1090825450,'Rule 2047/1 (Power=2)\nKudos\n\n Kudos (singular Kudo) are an integral measure of a Player\'s\n Kismet and noteworthiness within the game of Agora.\n\n The Herald is the recordkeepor of Kudos. The kudos of a Player\n may only be changed as specified by the rules or by an\n instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n If an entity has a defined number of Kudos, but the number has\n not been set by the Rules, then the entity has 1 Kudo.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004'),(405335,'rcs','00000001.00000140',1941,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004','Fees','Fees',1090825450,'Rule 1941/3 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or\n fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the\n specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next\n highest integer.\n\n To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is\n otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e\n is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for\n that action. Upon said announcement, the action is performed,\n the Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the fee.\n\n Any Player (hereafter the challenger) may announce that the\n Actor possessed insufficient Honor (kudos) to perform the\n action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the\n attempted action.\n\n As soon as possible after such a challenge, the Herald shall\n confirm or deny whether the Actor possessed kudos equal to or\n greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action. If the\n Actor in fact possessed insufficient honor, or the honor of the\n Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort, the action\n shall be deemed to have not occurred and the kudos of the Actor\n shall be deemed to have not been changed by the fee.\n\n If a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days\n have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be\n permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge\n is issued, the Herald shall confirm or deny its correctness.\n But in this case the Fee shall be recorded even if the Actor is\n left with negative kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4528 (Goethe), 2 October 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004'),(405336,'rcs','00000001.00000140',2051,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004','Tabla Rasa','Tabla Rasa',1090825450,'Rule 2051/1 (Power=2)\nTabla Rasa\n\n The Herald\'s Budget shall consist of a positive integer between\n 5 and 25, known as the Tabla Rasa.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each quarter, the\n Herald shall announce the Turning of a New Parchment.\n\n The effect of such an announcement is to:\n (A) set each Player\'s kudos equal to:\n (i) the Tabla Rasa;\n (ii) plus the number of boons e holds;\n (iii) minus the number of albatrosses e holds;\n (iv) minus one for every 3 Blots e has.\n\n (B) revoke all ephemeral Patent Titles.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004'),(405337,'rcs','00000001.00000141',2071,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1097213988,'Rule 2071/1 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: ZOT!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [3]\n Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses\n (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have\n fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Point Mine\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the\n current week, you may gain 1 Point.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Dud Fusion\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Bleed [2]\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20\n Points.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\n * Caption: Discard and Draw\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of\n X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as\n one of the discarded cards.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004'),(405338,'rcs','00000001.00000142',2071,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1097214753,'Rule 2071/2 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: ZOT!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [3]\n Exploit: For a Fee of X Kudos, an entity of your choice loses\n (X times 10) Points. If this would cause that entity to have\n fewer than zero Points, e shall instead have zero Points.\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Point Mine\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: So long as you have not done so already during the\n current week, you may gain 1 Point.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Dud Fusion\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Bleed [2]\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to gain X times 20\n Points.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\n * Caption: Discard and Draw\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of\n X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as\n one of the discarded cards.\n\n * Caption: Rebel Rabble\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Rebellious]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week\n on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card\n is played as day #1.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004'),(405339,'rcs','00000001.00000142',1929,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4612 (Murphy), 10 September 2004','Points','Points',1097214753,'Rule 1929/8 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n A Player\'s Score is a measure of that Player\'s unloserliness,\n measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an\n integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since\n the last Score Reset has a Score of zero Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)\n or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said\n event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the\n Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in\n the affected Player\'s Score.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific\n event\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is invalid and points do not change.\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged\n later, then the player may be penalized/awarded a number of\n points equal to the original award/penalty.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3977 (Wes), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(1) by Propsoal 3993 (t), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4180 (Elysion), 7 July 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4467 (OscarMyer), 17 March 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4612 (Murphy), 10 September 2004'),(405340,'rcs','00000001.00000142',2073,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4613 (Murphy), 10 September 2004','Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?','Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?',1097214753,'Rule 2073/1 (Power=1)\nQuis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Assistant\n Director of Personnel, e is retired from that Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4613 (Murphy), 10 September 2004'),(405341,'rcs','00000001.00000142',2053,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4612 (Murphy), 10 September 2004','Team Points, Team Scores','Team Points, Team Scores',1097214753,'Rule 2053/2 (Power=1)\nTeam Points, Team Scores\n\n A Team Score is at all times an integer. The Team Score of a\n Team is the total sum of all Points of all Players grouped into\n that Team, plus the Team\'s Team Points.\n\n A Team who has not been Awarded or Penalized since the last\n Score Reset has zero Team Points.\n\n The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain\n Team to be Awarded or Penalised Team Points. If said event\n occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the Award\n or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in the\n affected Team Points.\n\n Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else\n it is ineffective:\n -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event\n -- It must unambiguously describe the event\n -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty\n -- It must be the first valid notification for that specific\n event\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is invalid and points do not change.\n\n If the event did not actually occur, and the notification is not\n challenged within 7 days for this reason, then the notification\n is valid and points change. If the notification is challenged\n later, then the team may be penalized/awarded a number of points\n equal to the original award/penalty.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4494 (Peekee), 13 May 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4542 (Murphy), 23 November 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4612 (Murphy), 10 September 2004'),(405342,'rcs','00000001.00000142',2042,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4612 (Murphy), 10 September 2004','Team Wins','Team Wins',1097214753,'Rule 2042/7 (Power=1)\nTeam Wins\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4491 (Peekee), 6 May 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4502 (Peekee), 5 June 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4503 (Peekee), 15 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4530 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4547 (Sherlock), 13 January 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4612 (Murphy), 10 September 2004'),(405343,'rcs','00000001.00000143',1932,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1097217074,'Rule 1932/7 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Shares [X], where X is a positive integer. The Holder is\n considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other\n Cards).\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: One Share\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [1]\n\n * Caption: Two Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [2]\n\n * Caption: Three Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [3]\n\n * Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Shareholders] [3]\n Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned\n to the Deck.\n\n All cards with the Element \"Shares [X]\" are cumulatively known\n as the Stock Cards.\n\n An entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares\n possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings\n of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share\n Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The\n Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405344,'rcs','00000001.00000143',1963,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Eligible Shareholders','Eligible Shareholders',1097217074,'Rule 1963/10 (Power=2)\nEligible Shareholders\n\n A Player is an Eligible Shareholder unless:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker; or\n (4) e is the Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4568 (Maud), 27 April 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405345,'rcs','00000001.00000143',1835,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Standing Down','Standing Down',1097217074,'Rule 1835/4 (Power=1)\nStanding Down\n\n During the Voting Period of an Election, any Candidate for that\n Election may stand down, by posting a public message to that\n effect. The player is then no longer to be considered a\n Candidate for that Election. Any further votes cast in eir\n favour are invalid, and e cannot win the Election.\n\n Any votes cast for a Player who stands down are cancelled, and\n any Player who cast such a vote is considered to have declared\n eir Presence in that Election. Additionally, any Player who\n cast such a vote may vote again, unless e has already cast\n another vote which remains uncancelled, and this Rule takes\n precedence over any Rule which would prevent such a vote.\n\n If, at any time during the Voting Period of an Election, there\n remains only a single Candidate, the Voting Period ends\n immediately, with the sole remaining Candidate as the winner of\n that Election.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3715 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4035 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4363 (OscarMeyr), 16 August 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405346,'rcs','00000001.00000143',1505,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions',1097217074,'Rule 1505/11 (Power=1)\nStandard Classes of Crimes and Infractions\n\n A Class N Infraction (where N is replaced with a number) is an\n Infraction for which the penalty is N Blots. Such a penalty is\n assessed upon the execution of a Ticketing Order that Orders the\n Herald to record the penalty.\n\n A Class N Crime (where N is replaced with a number) is a Crime\n for which the penalty is N Blots. Such a penalty is assessed\n upon the execution of a Sentencing Order that Orders the Herald\n to record the penalty.\n\n If such a Sentencing or Ticketing Order is vacated after the\n Herald has already recorded the penalty, then an equal number of\n Blots are expunged from the penalized entity. (If the entity\n has less Blots than the amount of the penalty, then all eir\n Blots are expunged.)\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2431 (favor), Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1505, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4416 (OscarMeyr), 16 November 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405347,'rcs','00000001.00000143',2068,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','The Deckmastor','The Deckmastor',1097217074,'Rule 2068/1 (Power=1)\nThe Deckmastor\n\n The Deckmastor is an office which acts as the recordkeepor for\n Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of\n all Cards in existence and what entity possesses each Card.\n\n The Deckmastor shall have a budget containing the Maximum Hand\n Size and the Minimum Hand Size, each of which is a positive\n integer between 2 and 10, with the Minimum being less than the\n Maximum. In the absence of a budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall\n be 5 and the Minimum Hand Size shall be 2.\n\n The Deck is a Gambler. The Deckmastor shall be the sole Executor\n of The Deck, but may take no action on behalf of The Deck except\n as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The Deck may not transfer\n Cards to any other entity except as explicitly required by the\n Rules.\n\n Only the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards, and e may do if\n and only if the Rules require it by announcing the Card being\n created or destroyed and the entity who either possesses it now\n or possessed it at the time of destruction as appropriate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405348,'rcs','00000001.00000143',2074,'Created by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Hand Flux','Hand Flux',1097217074,'Rule 2074/0 (Power=2)\nHand Flux\n\n Flux is a stuck switch for Gamblers with states Free and Frozen.\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, a Gambler with frozen\n flux may not play, discard, or transfer cards from eir hand, nor\n may the Deckmastor satisfy pending draws for that hand.\n\n The Deck\'s flux shall always be free, rules to the contrary\n nonwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405349,'rcs','00000001.00000143',2075,'Created by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1097217074,'Rule 2075/0 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and three\n Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size\n at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.\n\n If a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any\n particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to\n announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular\n Patent Title Champion.\n\n Exactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all\n Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen. The Deckmastor\n shall transfer random cards from the hands of each frozen\n gambler to the deck, until each frozen gambler has either (a) a\n hand size equal to or less than the Minimum hand size or (b) no\n cards. Then, the Deckmaster shall deal cards to the winner up\n to the maximum hand size. When these tasks have been peformed,\n the Flux of every Gambler shall become free.\n\n If no one has won the game in the last six months, then any\n Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of\n a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be\n awarded nor shall extra winner\'s be dealt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405350,'rcs','00000001.00000143',2070,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Card Powerz','Card Powerz',1097217074,'Rule 2070/1 (Power=1)\nCard Powerz\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the\n Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not\n set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.\n\n * Handed [X], where X is a non-negative integer: When\n calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.\n\n * Restricted [X], where X is a type of entity: Only entities\n considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by\n the Card.\n\n * Limited [X] [Y], where X is a type of entity and Y is a\n positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to\n Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay\n a Fee of Y.\n\n * Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being\n transferred to The Deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405351,'rcs','00000001.00000143',2067,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Cards in Play','Cards in Play',1097217074,'Rule 2067/1 (Power=1)\nCards in Play\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Distrib-u-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.\n\n * Caption: Absolv-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Limited [Immaculate Players] [1]\n Exploit: Expunge one Blot from any one entity.\n\n * Caption: Debate-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to\n the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that\n Proposal to be in the named Chamber.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4569 (Wes), 2 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405352,'rcs','00000001.00000143',2071,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1097217074,'Rule 2071/3 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\n * Caption: Discard and Draw\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of\n X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as\n one of the discarded cards.\n\n * Caption: Rebel Rabble\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Rebellious]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week\n on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card\n is played as day #1.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405353,'rcs','00000001.00000143',1922,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1097217074,'Rule 1922/7 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405354,'rcs','00000001.00000144',559,'Amended(23) by Proposal 4616 (OscarMeyr), 1 October 2004','The Registrar','The Registrar',1097217618,'Rule 559/23 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Weekly Report shall include all of the following\n information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent; and\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4616 (OscarMeyr), 1 October 2004'),(405355,'rcs','00000001.00000145',1664,'Amended(26) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Rebellion','Rebellion',1102054110,'Rule 1664/26 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - All Stock Cards in the possession of Abiding Players are\n returned to the Deck, and all Abiding Players have their\n initiative switched to Gote.\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(25) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004\nAmended(26) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405356,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2059,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4622 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Legality of Bonus Clauses','Legality of Bonus Clauses',1102054110,'Rule 2059/2 (Power=2)\nLegality of Bonus Clauses\n\n The following Element is defined for cards:\n\n Grafty: If a card is Grafty, then it is Budgeted, with its\n initial quota set equal to one plus the number of Players who\n voted FOR the Proposal that first defined that class of card\n as Grafty. When the Deckmastor initially creates cards to\n fulfil this quota, e shall, Rules to the contrary\n nonwithstanding, first destroy all existing copies of the\n card, then create one copy in the possession of the Deck, and\n finally create one copy in the possession of each Player who\n voted FOR said proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4537 (Murphy), 16 November 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4562 (root), 22 March 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4622 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405357,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2078,'Created by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Takeover Proposals','Takeover Proposals',1102054110,'Rule 2078/0 (Power=2)\nTakeover Proposals\n\n Initiative is a stuck player switch, tracked by the Assessor,\n with values Gote and Sente.\n\n A Takeover Proposal is a proposal meeting these requirements:\n\n (a) It is labelled as a Takeover Proposal.\n (b) No Takeover Proposal has been submitted earlier in the\n same month.\n (c) It specifies a set of players (hereafter the Corporate\n Raiders) that is no larger than P/2 or smaller than P/3,\n where P is the number of active noisy players at the time\n of submission.\n\n Rules to the Contrary nonwithstanding, a Takeover Proposal is\n both Democratic and Sane.\n\n At the beginning of a Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, all\n players have their initiative flipped to Gote. At the end of a\n Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, all players have their\n initiative flipped as follows:\n (a) Adopted: All Corporate Raiders gain Sente.\n (b) Rejected: All other players gain Sente.\n (c) Failed quorum: No one gains Sente.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405358,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2052,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Voting Potential','Voting Potential',1102054110,'Rule 2052/4 (Power=2)\nVoting Potential\n\n (a) Associated with every Player is a non-negative integral\n number known as that Player\'s Voting Potential. At the\n beginning of each new month, every Player\'s Voting Potential\n is divided by two and rounded down.\n\n (b) At any time, a Player may, by announcement, increase their\n Voting Potential by a positive integral amount, N. The Fee\n associated with this action is the Political Charge\n multiplied by N.\n\n (c) The Assessor is responsible for tracking these\n announcements, and recording Players\' Voting Potentials.\n\n (d) the Political Charge is a positive integer that is initially\n 4, and may be changed only as defined by instruments of a\n power of 2 or greater. Rules to the contrary\n nonwithstanding, if the current value of the Political\n Charge cannot be determined by reasonable effort, it shall\n be considered to be reset to 4. The Assessor is responsible\n for tracking the current Political Charge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4526 (Steve), 8 September 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4621 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405359,'rcs','00000001.00000145',1950,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Voting Power','Voting Power',1102054110,'Rule 1950/9 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Player:\n (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player\n has Sente.\n (ii) one otherwise.\n (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is a Shareholder at the time e casts eir vote.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405360,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2069,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1102054110,'Rule 2069/1 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Definitions\n\n The Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a\n Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All\n Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each\n individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy\n of that Class of Card.\n\n (a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of\n Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.\n\n (b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time\n fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then\n the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the\n possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a\n Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor\n shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The\n Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the\n Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.\n\n (c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall\n have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the\n Element of that name shall behave according to the\n description associated with that Element. An Element not\n defined in the Rules has no effect.\n\n (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and\n only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e\n meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in\n that Exploit. Any reference to \"you,\" \"your\" or a similar\n pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of\n that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known\n as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is\n automatically transferred to The Deck immediately after\n being Played.\n\n III. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n Discarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card\n to The Deck.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made.\n\n A Gambler may Draw from The Deck for a Fee equal to the\n number of times that Gambler has previously Drawn from the\n Deck during the current month so long as the Gambler\'s Hand\n Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number\n of Offices e holds. For the purposes of this Rule, the\n Speakership is considered an office.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405361,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2075,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1102054110,'Rule 2075/1 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and three\n Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size\n at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.\n\n If a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any\n particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to\n announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular\n Patent Title Champion.\n\n Exactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all\n Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen. The Deckmastor\n shall transfer random cards from the hands of each frozen\n gambler to the deck, until each frozen gambler has either (a) a\n hand size equal to or less than the Minimum hand size or (b) no\n cards. Then, the Deckmaster shall deal cards to the winner up\n to the maximum hand size. When these tasks have been peformed,\n the Flux of every Gambler shall become free.\n\n If no one has won the game in the last six months, then any\n Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of\n a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be\n awarded nor shall extra winner\'s cards be dealt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405362,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2070,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Card Powerz','Card Powerz',1102054110,'Rule 2070/2 (Power=1)\nCard Powerz\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the\n Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not\n set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.\n\n * Handed [X], where X is a non-negative integer: When\n calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.\n\n * Restricted [X], where X is a type of entity: Only entities\n considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by\n the Card.\n\n * Limited [X] [Y], where X is a type of entity and Y is a\n positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to\n Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay\n a Fee of Y.\n\n * Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being\n transferred to The Deck.\n\n * Delayed[N]: You may not play this card if you have played a\n copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405363,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2067,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Cards in Play','Cards in Play',1102054110,'Rule 2067/1 (Power=2)\nCards in Play\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Distrib-u-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.\n\n * Caption: Absolv-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Limited [Immaculate Players] [1]\n Exploit: Expunge one Blot from any one entity.\n\n * Caption: Debate-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to\n the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that\n Proposal to be in the named Chamber.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4569 (Wes), 2 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405364,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2076,'Created by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Card cards','Card cards',1102054110,'Rule 2076/0 (Power=1)\nCard cards\n\n Caption: Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the\n next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of\n Delay of Game, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Discard Picking\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[4]\n Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the\n past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that\n card, if one is still in the deck, is automatically\n transferred from the Deck to your hand.\n\n Caption: Enforced Charity\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[3]\n Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice\n to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2\n Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Drop your Weapon\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that\n Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Presto!\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[7]\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically transferred to your hand,\n provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405365,'rcs','00000001.00000145',2077,'Created by Proposal 4623 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Democratic cards','Democratic cards',1102054110,'Rule 2077/0 (Power=1)\nDemocratic cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Coalition\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Voting Potential of\n an indicated Player by N by paying a fee of N for\n yourself, or 2 times N for another Player.\n\n * Caption: Patronage\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Political Charge by\n N by paying a fee of 4 times N. If undefined\n elsewhere, the Political Charge is a positive\n integer, tracked by the Assessor, which begins at 4.\n\n * Caption: Policy\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may sanitize a Proposal, as described elsewhere\n in the Rules.\n\n * Caption: Procedure\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may abort and make undistributable any non-sane\n Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4623 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405366,'rcs','00000001.00000146',2071,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4627 (root), 4 December 2004','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1107755290,'Rule 2071/4 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2], Delayed [3]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\n * Caption: Discard and Draw\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of\n X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as\n one of the discarded cards.\n\n * Caption: Rebel Rabble\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Rebellious]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week\n on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card\n is played as day #1.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4627 (root), 4 December 2004'),(405367,'rcs','00000001.00000147',1434,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4629 (Murphy), 19 December 2004','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting',1107756938,'Rule 1434/11 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Referendum Voting\n\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the\n beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then\n the Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\n * Cutoff for Challenges: If the results of a Referendum are not\n challenged within seven days after the Vote Collector\n announces them, then the announced results are the true\n results of that Referendum, even if they would otherwise be in\n error.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1456, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2585, May 1 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2783 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4629 (Murphy), 19 December 2004'),(405368,'rcs','00000001.00000147',2070,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4631 (root), 19 December 2004','Card Powerz','Card Powerz',1107756938,'Rule 2070/3 (Power=1)\nCard Powerz\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the\n Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not\n set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.\n\n * Handed [X], where X is a non-negative integer: When\n calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.\n\n * Restricted [X], where X is a type of entity: Only entities\n considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by\n the Card.\n\n * Limited [X] [Y], where X is a type of entity and Y is a\n positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to\n Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay\n a Fee of Y.\n\n * Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being\n transferred to The Deck.\n\n * Delayed[N]: You may not play this card if you have played a\n copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.\n\n * Powered [X], where X is a positive integer: This Card has a\n Power of X. To Activate any Exploit possessed by this Card, a\n Fee of X - 1 must be paid in addition to any other Fees\n required to Activate that Exploit, unless that Exploit\n explicitly specifies otherwise.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4631 (root), 19 December 2004'),(405369,'rcs','00000001.00000147',2067,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4631 (root), 19 December 2004','Cards in Play','Cards in Play',1107756938,'Rule 2067/2 (Power=2)\nCards in Play\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Distrib-u-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.\n\n * Caption: Absolv-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Limited [Immaculate Players] [1]\n Exploit: Expunge one Blot from any one entity.\n\n * Caption: Debate-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted, Powered [2]\n Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to\n the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that\n Proposal to be in the named Chamber.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4569 (Wes), 2 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4631 (root), 19 December 2004'),(405370,'rcs','00000001.00000147',2079,'Created by Proposal 4630 (Goethe), 19 December 2004','Discord','Discord',1107756938,'Rule 2079/0 (Power=1)\nDiscord\n\n The following card is defined:\n\n Caption: Chaos Apple\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed[5], Delayed[7], Kallisti!\n Exploit: If this card has not been Played in the current\n quarter, then, as soon as possible after this card is\n played, the Deckmaster shall simultaneously transfer\n all cards from non-Deck hands to a temporary Gambler\n known as Fate. E shall then deal cards at random from\n Fate to each Gambler until each Gambler has the same\n number of cards as e had immediately before Fate took a\n hand. If, between the time this card is Played and the\n time Fate\'s cards are dealt, exactly a single Player\n publicly claims to be The Prettiest One, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer this card to em as soon as possible\n after Fate\'s cards are dealt. The Deckmastor is\n encouraged use Heisenberg\'s Law in dealing hands from\n Fate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4630 (Goethe), 19 December 2004'),(405371,'rcs','00000001.00000148',2069,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1107757171,'Rule 2069/2 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Definitions\n\n The Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a\n Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All\n Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each\n individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy\n of that Class of Card.\n\n (a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of\n Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.\n\n (b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time\n fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then\n the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the\n possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a\n Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor\n shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The\n Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the\n Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.\n\n (c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall\n have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the\n Element of that name shall behave according to the\n description associated with that Element. An Element not\n defined in the Rules has no effect.\n\n (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and\n only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e\n meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in\n that Exploit. Any reference to \"you,\" \"your\" or a similar\n pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of\n that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known\n as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is\n automatically transferred to The Deck immediately after\n being Played.\n\n III. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n Discarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card\n to The Deck.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made.\n\n A Gambler may Draw from The Deck for a Fee equal to the\n number of times that Gambler has previously Drawn from the\n Deck during the current month so long as the Gambler\'s Hand\n Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus the number\n of Offices e holds. For the purposes of this Rule, the\n Speakership is considered an office.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005'),(405372,'rcs','00000001.00000149',2080,'Created by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005','Cards for Proposals','Cards for Proposals',1107757451,'Rule 2080/0 (Power=1)\nCards for Proposals\n\n When an Interested Proposal is adopted, the Proposer shall gain\n one pending draw, regardless of any applicable Hand Limit.\n\n When a Disinterested Proposal is adopted, the Proposer shall\n gain one pending draw, subject to any applicable Hand Limit.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005'),(405373,'rcs','00000001.00000150',1932,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1110803162,'Rule 1932/8 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Shares [X], where X is a positive integer. The Holder is\n considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other\n Cards).\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: One Share\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [1], Handed [2]\n\n * Caption: Two Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [2], Handed [3]\n\n * Caption: Three Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [3], Handed [4]\n\n * Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Shareholders] [3]\n Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned\n to the Deck.\n\n All cards with the Element \"Shares [X]\" are cumulatively known\n as the Stock Cards.\n\n An entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares\n possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings\n of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share\n Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The\n Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (Murphy), 31 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005'),(405374,'rcs','00000001.00000150',2034,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005','Votes are Protected','Votes are Protected',1110803162,'Rule 2034/1 (Power=3)\nVotes are Protected\n\n Any Proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change an\n entity\'s vote on an Issue for which the voting period has begun\n but for which no official voting report has been published at\n the time of the Proposal\'s adoption shall be wholly without\n effect, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Once an official voting report has been published for that\n Issue, no votes on that Issue may be changed or cancelled, and\n the outcome of the Issue may not be changed in any way, any Rule\n to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this Rule shall be\n construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting\n the results of voting on Issues.\n\n If the results of an issue are not challenged within seven days\n after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced\n results are the true results of that issue, even if they would\n otherwise be in error.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005'),(405375,'rcs','00000001.00000150',1434,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting',1110803162,'Rule 1434/12 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Referendum Voting\n\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: A Vote, once sent to the Vote Collector, cannot be\n changed.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the\n beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then\n the Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1456, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2585, May 1 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2783 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4629 (Murphy), 19 December 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005'),(405376,'rcs','00000001.00000150',1445,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005','Defaults for Elections','Defaults for Elections',1110803162,'Rule 1445/18 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections\n\n When an Election is required and the procedure is not defined\n elsewhere, the following Standard Election Procedure shall be\n used. Details specified herein are defaults which may be\n modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for taking\n nominations, collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing\n the results. The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time\n the Election begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the winner of\n the Election, then the Election has no winner.\n\n * Nominator: A Nominator is an entity permitted to Nominate a\n Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players are Nominators.\n Activity is measured at the time a Nomination is sent.\n\n * Prospective: A Prospective is an entity permitted to be\n Nominated as a Candidate in an Election. Only Active Players\n are Prospectives. Activity is measured at the time a\n Nomination is sent.\n\n * Nominating: A Nominator Nominates a Prospective by sending a\n message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period,\n indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the\n Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same\n as the Nominator.\n\n * Candidates: A Candidate for an Election is a Prospective who\n has been Nominated in that Election.\n\n * Retraction: A Nominator may retract eir Nomination by sending\n a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating Period,\n indicating the Election and the Prospective. If the\n Prospective is not explicitly identified, then it is the same\n as the Nominator.\n\n * Declination: A Prospective may decline eir Nomination by\n sending a message to the Vote Collector during the Nominating\n Period, indicating the Election. Upon doing so, e may not be\n re-Nominated in that Election by anyone but emself.\n\n * Mode of Nominations: There are three Modes of Nominations:\n Selfish, Selfless, or Open. The Vote Collector may specify a\n Mode of Nominations when e announces the start of the\n Election; if e does not, then the Mode is Selfish.\n\n (a) In a Selfish Election, a Nominator may Nominate only\n emself.\n (b) In a Selfless Election, a Nominator may not Nominate\n emself.\n (c) In an Open Election, a Nominator may Nominate any\n Prospective.\n\n * Start of Nominations: The Nominating Period begins at the time\n of the first correct and legal announcement that an Election\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Nominations: The Nominating Period lasts for one\n Week. All Nominations received by the Vote Collector outside\n of the Nominating Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy: Nominations need not be kept secret.\n\n * End of Nominations: As soon as possible after the end of the\n Nominating Period, the Vote Collector shall publish a list of\n all Candidates. If e does not do this as soon as possible,\n then the Election has no winner.\n\n If there are no Candidates, then the Election has no winner.\n\n If there is exactly one Candidate, then e is the winner of that\n Election.\n\n If there are two or more Candidates, then a Referendum begins\n when the Vote Collector publishes the list of Candidates. This\n is a standard Referendum, with the following exceptions:\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector for the Referendum is the\n same as the Vote Collector for the Election.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is the name of exactly one Candidate for\n the given Election. Words which are effectively synonymous\n with these are also permissible.\n\n * Failure of Referendum: If the Referendum fails for any reason\n (e.g. Quorum is not achieved), then the Election has no\n winner.\n\n * Adoption: The winner of the Election is the Candidate for whom\n the most Votes were cast. If two or more Candidates are tied\n for most Votes, then the Speaker shall choose one of those\n Candidates, who becomes the winner when the Speaker announces\n eir choice. The Speaker shall announce eir choice as soon as\n possible after the Vote Collector announces the results of\n Voting.\n\n * Effectiveness: An Election takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces the identity of its winner. The\n effect of an Election is defined by other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1499 (Blob), Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2578, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2600, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2808 (Murphy), Feb. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3564 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3616 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3836 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4017 (Elysion), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4031 (Elysion), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4480 (Steve), 23 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005'),(405377,'rcs','00000001.00000151',1561,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4640 (Quazie), 6 March 2005','Illegality of Bonus Clauses','Illegality of Bonus Clauses',1110803655,'Rule 1561/2 (Power=2)\nIllegality of Bonus Clauses\n\n Any Proposal which offers a bribe to a Player or Players to\n vote either FOR or AGAINST a Proposal (either itself or another\n Proposal) shall be completely without effect, even if it is\n adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Proposing a card with an element of Grafty is not considered\n bribery.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2449, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2627, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4640 (Quazie), 6 March 2005'),(405378,'rcs','00000001.00000152',2075,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1110804278,'Rule 2075/2 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and three\n Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size\n at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.\n\n If a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any\n particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to\n announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular\n Patent Title Champion.\n\n Exactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all\n Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen.\n\n If no one has won the game in the last six months, then any\n Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of\n a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be\n awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005'),(405379,'rcs','00000001.00000152',2083,'Created by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005','Win Resolution','Win Resolution',1110804278,'Rule 2083/0 (Power=1)\nWin Resolution\n\n As soon as possible after any gambler\'s hand becomes frozen, the\n Deckmastor shall perform the following actions in order:\n\n 1) Calculate and publicly announce the Card Tax for each frozen\n gambler. The Card Tax for a frozen gambler is equal to the\n hand size of that gambler less the minimum hand size. The\n Card Tax shall be calculated as of the moment the gambler\'s\n hand became frozen.\n\n 2) From every frozen gambler in turn, transfer cards selected at\n random from that gambler\'s hand to the Deck until eir hand\n size has been reduced by an amount not less than eir Card Tax\n or e has no cards remaining.\n\n 3) If the hands were frozen because of a win, deal cards to the\n winner until eir hand size has been increased by the maximum\n hand size less the minimum hand size, calculated as of the\n moment the winner\'s hand became frozen.\n\n 4) Publicly announce that the table is open for business.\n\n Upon publication of an announcement as in 4), the Flux of every\n gambler shall become free. If the Deckmastor makes a public\n announcement as in 4) when one or more gamblers are frozen but\n steps 1), 2), and 3) have not been completed, then the\n announcement is still valid, but the Deckmastor must complete\n steps 1), 2), and 3) as soon as possible. If the Deckmastor\'s\n error is not made in good faith, then e commits the Class 4\n Crime of Stacking the Deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005'),(405380,'rcs','00000001.00000152',2080,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005','Cards for Proposals','Cards for Proposals',1110804278,'Rule 2080/1 (Power=1)\nCards for Proposals\n\n If an Interested Proposal is adopted, the Proposer may draw from\n the deck by announcing the Proposal number while drawing,\n provided that e does so within a week after the proposal\'s\n adoption and that e has not already done so for the same\n proposal.\n\n If a Disinterested Proposal is adopted, the Proposer may draw\n from the deck by announcing the Proposal number while drawing;\n so long as the Proposer\'s Hand Size is smaller than the Maximum\n Hand Size plus the number of Offices e holds, the Proposer\n performs the draw within a week after the proposal\'s adoption,\n and the Proposer has not already done so for the same proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005'),(405381,'rcs','00000001.00000152',1922,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1110804278,'Rule 1922/8 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) Quack, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the production,\n distribution, and marketing of panaceas and other patent\n medicines.\n\n (c) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (d) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\n (e) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005'),(405382,'rcs','00000001.00000153',2034,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1110804422,'Rule 2034/1 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any Proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change an\n entity\'s vote on an Issue for which the voting period has begun\n but for which no official voting report has been published at\n the time of the Proposal\'s adoption shall be wholly without\n effect, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Once an official voting report has been published for that\n Issue, no votes on that Issue may be changed or cancelled, and\n the outcome of the Issue may not be changed in any way, any Rule\n to the contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this Rule shall be\n construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting\n the results of voting on Issues.\n\n If the results of an issue are not challenged within seven days\n after the Vote Collector announces them, then the announced\n results are the true results of that issue, even if they would\n otherwise be in error.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005'),(405383,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1905,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004','The Cabinet','The Cabinet',1111123765,'Rule 1905/2 (Power=1)\nThe Cabinet\n\n The Cabinet, or Inner Cabinet, consists of the Speaker and all\n electees to office. The Outer Cabinet consists of all\n Shareholders who are not members of the Inner Cabinet.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004'),(405384,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1664,'Amended(26) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Rebellion','Rebellion',1111123765,'Rule 1664/26 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - All Stock Cards in the possession of Abiding Players are\n returned to the Deck, and all Abiding Players have their\n initiative switched to Gote.\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - A Speaker Transition occurs\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(25) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(26) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405385,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1975,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004','The Assistant Director of Personnel','The Assistant Director of Personnel',1111123765,'Rule 1975/4 (Power=1)\nThe Assistant Director of Personnel\n\n The Assistant Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is\n responsible for holding elections for offices.\n\n The ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all offices;\n\n (b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on\n which e most recently became electee to that office;\n\n (c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not\n the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date\n on which e most recently became holder of that office;\n\n (d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for\n that office ends, or an indication that the office is held\n in perpetuity;\n\n (e) the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next\n quarterly Speaker transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4267 (root), 22 March 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004'),(405386,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1932,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1111123765,'Rule 1932/8 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Shares [X], where X is a positive integer. The Holder is\n considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other\n Cards).\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: One Share\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [1], Handed [2]\n\n * Caption: Two Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [2], Handed [3]\n\n * Caption: Three Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [3], Handed [4]\n\n * Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Shareholders] [3]\n Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned\n to the Deck.\n\n All cards with the Element \"Shares [X]\" are cumulatively known\n as the Stock Cards.\n\n An entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares\n possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings\n of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share\n Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The\n Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005'),(405387,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1963,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004','Eligible Shareholders','Eligible Shareholders',1111123765,'Rule 1963/10 (Power=2)\nEligible Shareholders\n\n A Player is an Eligible Shareholder unless:\n\n (1) e is not active;\n (2) e has three or more Blots;\n (3) e is the Speaker; or\n (4) e is the Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4568 (Maud), 27 April 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004'),(405388,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1950,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004','Voting Power','Voting Power',1111123765,'Rule 1950/9 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings;\n (2) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Player:\n (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player\n has Sente.\n (ii) one otherwise.\n (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is a Shareholder at the time e casts eir vote.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004'),(405389,'rcs','00000001.00000154',2019,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1111123765,'Rule 2019/1 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n At any time during the Voting Period of an Ordinary Proposal,\n the Speaker may Veto that Proposal with the Support of one-third\n of all Shareholders, rounded down.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004'),(405390,'rcs','00000001.00000154',879,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004','Quorum','Quorum',1111123765,'Rule 879/20 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n shareholders cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto\n it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004'),(405391,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1965,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004','Complacent Corporation','Complacent Corporation',1111123765,'Rule 1965/3 (Power=2)\nComplacent Corporation\n\n As soon as possible after an ordinary proposal fails quorum, the\n Assessor shall publish a Notice of Complacency to that effect.\n In addition, at any time during the voting period of an ordinary\n proposal for which the number of entities eligible to vote on\n the proposal is less than the quorum of the proposal, the\n Assessor may immediately publish a Notice of Complacency without\n waiting for the proposal\'s voting period to end.\n\n Upon publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency for\n a proposal, the proposal is immediately aborted. In addition,\n the copy of the proposal that is added to the proposal pool as a\n result of the abortion becomes democratic and distributable.\n\n Publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency not\n strictly authorized or required by this rule is the Class 2\n Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4161 (Steve), 5 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4487 (root), 28 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004'),(405392,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1450,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','Judicial Separation','Judicial Separation',1111123765,'Rule 1450/4 (Power=1)\nJudicial Separation\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Clerk of the\n Courts, e is retired from that Office.\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Justiciar, e is\n retired from that Office.\n\n Whenever a Player is both Clerk of the Courts and Justiciar, e\n is removed from the Office of Justiciar.\n\n Neither the Speaker, the Justiciar, nor a nominee for Justiciar\n may be nominated for Clerk of the Courts.\n\n Neither the Speaker, the Clerk of the Courts, nor a nominee for\n Clerk of the Courts may be nominated for Justiciar.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405393,'rcs','00000001.00000154',1647,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004','The Speaker-Elect','The Speaker-Elect',1111123765,'Rule 1647/12 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker-Elect\n\n The Speaker-Elect is an office; its holder is usually the\n Speaker\'s successor.\n\n Whenever the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e ceases to be\n Speaker-Elect. The Speaker can never hold the Office of\n Speaker-Elect, nor be the Electee to the Office of\n Speaker-Elect. If the Speaker somehow becomes the Electee to\n the Office of Speaker-Elect, e is immediately removed from that\n Office.\n\n When the Office of Speaker-Elect has no Electee, because of the\n Speaker-Elect becoming Speaker (or for any other reason), the\n Office is filled according to the Order of Succession, as\n defined by other Rules.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other Rules defining the\n characteristics of the Office of Speaker-Elect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2681, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4246 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4429 (The Goddess Eris), 16 January 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004'),(405394,'rcs','00000001.00000154',402,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004','Speaker Transition','Speaker Transition',1111123765,'Rule 402/10 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Transition\n\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time\n the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which\n proceeds as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result\n of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences,\n the Assistant Director of Personnel shall publish a Notice of\n Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition\n and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time\n the Transition commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004'),(405395,'rcs','00000001.00000155',790,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005','Filling Vacant Offices','Filling Vacant Offices',1112613404,'Rule 790/12 (Power=1)\nFilling Vacant Offices\n\n As soon as possible after\n\n a) an Office ceases to have an Electee;\n b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or\n c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;\n\n the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an\n Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This\n requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.\n\n The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant\n Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is\n that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the\n designated conductor is the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 790, ca. Dec. 20 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2454, Feb. 6 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 28 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2639, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005'),(405396,'rcs','00000001.00000155',2085,'Created by Proposal 4649 (Quazie), 22 March 2005','Mute Exemption','Mute Exemption',1112613404,'Rule 2085/0 (Power=1)\nMute Exemption\n\n A Legislator who is Mute may, with two support, submit a body of\n text with Mute Exemption. This text becomes a Proposal if it\n meets all rule requirements for a Proposal other than the\n Proposer not being Mute.\n\n As soon as possible after a Proposal with Mute Exemption passes,\n the Assessor shall expunge a number of Blots from the Proposer\n equal to the Adoption Index of the Proposal. The Proposer shall\n receive no Boons that may have awarded by other rules for the\n passing of the Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4649 (Quazie), 22 March 2005'),(405397,'rcs','00000001.00000155',1558,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005','Defaults for Elections for Offices','Defaults for Elections for Offices',1112613404,'Rule 1558/7 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections for Offices\n\n When the Rules require that an Election be conducted to fill\n an Office, that Election shall be conducted in accordance with\n the usual Rules for Elections, with the following exceptions:\n\n * The Vote Collector is the Assistant Director of Personnel at\n the time the Election begins, unless the Election seeks to\n fill the Office of Assistant Director of Personnel, in which\n case the Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the\n Election begins.\n\n * No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted\n Nomination, would not be permitted to hold the Office which\n the Election is seeking to fill.\n\n * If the Vote Collector fails to meet an ASAP requirement to\n publish a list of Candidates, or the identity of the winning\n Candidate, then the Election/Referendum does not fail, but\n becomes Stale. If a new Election for the same Office is\n initiated, then the stale Election/Referendum fails.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3628 (Murphy), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4509 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005'),(405398,'rcs','00000001.00000155',1871,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005','Turns for All','Turns for All',1112613404,'Rule 1871/6 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and\n turned.\n\n Whenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any\n future CFJs.\n\n Whenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and\n there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall publish a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least\n one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players\n become unturned.\n\n The CotC may switch the Orientation of players e expects to\n judge CFJs slowly or not at all to turned, without 2 objections.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005'),(405399,'rcs','00000001.00000155',2084,'Created by Proposal 4647 (Quazie), 22 March 2005','Cash Cards','Cash Cards',1112613404,'Rule 2084/0 (Power=1)\nCash Cards\n\n * Caption: Greedy Bastard\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Gain one Kudo, but also gain the Albatross of Greed.\n\n * Caption: Charity Brings Happiness\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: For a fee of one Kudo you may indicate any other\n player to gain one Kudo, as long as they have fewer Kudos\n than you do and is not yourself. Upon doing this you gain\n the boon of Charity.\n\n * Caption: Thieves in the Night\n Element: Grafty, Delayed[5]\n Exploit: Provided that fewer than half of all gamblers,\n besides the deck, have a \'Thieves in the Night\' card in\n their hand, and the player you indicate does not have a\n \'Thieves in the Night\' card in their hand, That player\n losses one Kudo and you gain one Kudo. For each of the\n aforementioned stipulations that is false upon the playing\n of this card, you gain the Albatross of Thief.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4647 (Quazie), 22 March 2005'),(405400,'rcs','00000001.00000156',1841,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4656 (Quazie), 29 March 2005','Granting Power of Attorney','Granting Power of Attorney',1112614949,'Rule 1841/6 (Power=1)\nGranting Power of Attorney\n\n (a) A Player (the Grantor) who has been continuously registered\n for more than two months is empowered to give eir Power of\n Attorney (PoA) to another Player (the Holder), as specified\n in this Rule.\n\n (b) The Holder holds the Grantor\'s PoA if all of the following\n conditions are met:\n (1) the Grantor has announced that e grants eir PoA to the\n Holder;\n (2) the Holder has, in the week immediately preceding or\n immediately following the Grantor\'s announcement,\n publically consented to hold the Grantor\'s PoA;\n (3) the Holder is Active; and\n (4) the grant of PoA has not been withdrawn for any of the\n reasons listed in (d).\n\n (c) The grant of PoA commences at the time the Grantor grants\n eir PoA to the Holder, or at the time the Holder consents to\n the grant, or at the time specified by the Grantor,\n whichever is latest. If the Grantor specifies a time at\n which the grant of PoA is to commence, it must be a time no\n more than seven days from the Grantor\'s announcement. Later\n specifications are without effect for the purposes of this\n Rule.\n\n (d) The grant of PoA is withdrawn if:\n (1) the period of the grant specified by the Grantor\n expires;\n (2) the Grantor publically withdraws the grant;\n (3) the Grantor is deregistered;\n (4) the Holder ceases to be active or is deregistered; or\n (5) the Holder has held the PoA continuously for three\n months.\n\n (e) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing other\n Rules from granting and withdrawing PoA by other means.\n\n (f) Other Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player who\n has granted PoA to another Player as described in this rule\n shall be deregistered while the grant of PoA is in effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3739 (Swann), May 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4656 (Quazie), 29 March 2005'),(405401,'rcs','00000001.00000156',1686,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4655 (Kolja), 29 March 2005','Official Reports','Official Reports',1112614949,'Rule 1686/12 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an\n Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly\n Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official\n Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official\n Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.\n\n The rules may specify conditions under which a player is mauve;\n that player is not mauve unless the rules explicitly state at\n least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied.\n As soon as possible after a player becomes mauve, the Speaker\n shall announce this fact. The only condition for mauveness is\n being nicknamed Blob.\n\n Each officer with a Weekly Report must publish it weekly unless\n the content of the report would substantially be the same as in\n the previously published report. In this case, a report must\n only be published within one week of the next substantial change\n to the report\'s content. Each officer with a Monthly Report must\n publish it monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction\n of Failure to Report. If an officer fails to do so for at least\n three consecutive reporting periods, e may be cited for either\n Failure to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of\n Duty but not both. Any officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is\n immediately removed from that office. The Assistant Director of\n Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4489 (root), 6 May 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4655 (Kolja), 29 March 2005'),(405402,'rcs','00000001.00000156',1483,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4658 (root), 29 March 2005','Definition of Proposals','Definition of Proposals',1112614949,'Rule 1483/10 (Power=1)\nDefinition of Proposals\n\n A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute\n publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is\n intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a\n Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the\n Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or\n submitting a Proposal.\n\n The publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new\n Proposals.\n\n All Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more\n than 5 Blots.\n\n[CFJ 762: Anything contained in a Proposal is part of that Proposal,\n unless the Rules or Game Custom specifically says otherwise.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1619, Jul. 17 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3799 (Blob), Oct. 29 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4658 (root), 29 March 2005'),(405403,'rcs','00000001.00000156',2024,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1112614949,'Rule 2024/2 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement submitted in a\n single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked\n CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible\n to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned\n as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.\n\n The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs are Excess CFJs, then the Clerk of\n the Courts shall either assign them all or dismiss them all, at\n eir discretion. If e assigns them all, then e does not commit\n Allowing Excess CFJing by doing so, Rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in\n subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those\n CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those\n CFJs. The Clerk of the Courts shall either treat those CFJs as\n Linked (to each other) or not Linked, as e sees fit. In either\n case, those CFJs are no longer Linked to any of the non-remanded\n CFJs.\n\n If a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to\n be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from\n two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge\n is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more\n Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each\n other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still\n assigned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005'),(405404,'rcs','00000001.00000156',2074,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4660 (root), 29 March 2005','Hand Flux','Hand Flux',1112614949,'Rule 2074/1 (Power=2)\nHand Flux\n\n Flux is a stuck switch for Gamblers with states Free and Frozen.\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a Gambler with frozen\n flux may not play, discard, or transfer cards from eir hand, nor\n may the Deckmastor satisfy pending draws for that hand. However,\n the Deckmastor may by public announcement discard cards from any\n Frozen Gambler as required by the Rules.\n\n The Deck\'s flux shall always be free, rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4660 (root), 29 March 2005'),(405405,'rcs','00000001.00000156',2050,'Created by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003','The Garden','The Garden',1112614949,'Rule 2050/0 (Power=2)\nThe Garden\n\n A Daffodil is a Boon that may be awarded as the Rules specify or\n by an Instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n A Weed is an Albatross that may be awarded as the Rules specify\n or by an Instrument of Power 2 or greater.\n\n If there are no Players that hold at least one Weed or Daffodil,\n the Herald may repeal this Rule without Objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003'),(405406,'rcs','00000001.00000156',2086,'Created by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005','The University of Agora','The University of Agora',1112614949,'Rule 2086/0 (Power=1)\nThe University of Agora\n\n The University is an Entity.\n\n As President of the University, the Speaker is the sole Executor\n of the University, but may take no action on behalf of The\n University except as explicitly permitted by the Rules.\n\n Education is a stuck Player switch with values Student and\n Faculty Member. The Herald shall flip the Education switch to\n Faculty Member for a Player as soon as possible after that\n Player is awarded a Degree. The Herald is the recordkeepor of\n Education.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005'),(405407,'rcs','00000001.00000156',2087,'Created by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005','Research Grants','Research Grants',1112614949,'Rule 2087/0 (Power=1)\nResearch Grants\n\n The University offers Research Grants for projects that improve\n the intellectual, cultural and social life of Agora. The\n Speaker may announce a Research Grant by publicly describing a\n task to be performed and stating a number between one and five.\n\n If another Player completes this task to the Speaker\'s\n satisfaction within the next month, the Speaker shall award to\n that Player an equal number of Boons of Achievement, without two\n objections. No more than one Player may receive this award. If\n more than one Player undertakes the task, the Speaker shall\n choose only one Player to receive the award.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005'),(405408,'rcs','00000001.00000156',2088,'Created by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005','The University Book Club','The University Book Club',1112614949,'Rule 2088/0 (Power=1)\nThe University Book Club\n\n The University sponsors a monthly Book Club. During the first\n week of each month the first Player who publically specifies a\n rule as that month\'s Book Club Selection becomes the Moderator\n for the University Book Club. The Assessor shall award one Boon\n of Refinement apiece to the Moderator and Proposer for the first\n passed proposal within the next thirty days that either amends\n or repeals this Selection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005'),(405409,'rcs','00000001.00000156',2089,'Created by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005','Gardner Library','Gardner Library',1112614949,'Rule 2089/0 (Power=1)\nGardner Library\n\n The University (hereafter the Library) is a Gambler. Whenever\n the Library has fewer than five Cards, the Deckmastor shall as\n soon as possible deal randomly chosen Cards to the Library until\n it has five cards.\n\n A Player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified Card\n from the Library by paying a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. The\n fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The\n Card is considered reserved and may not be checked out by any\n Player until it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.\n\n As soon as possible after a Card is checked out from the Library\n and it is within the Speaker\'s ability to do so, the Speaker\n shall transfer the Card from the Library to the Borrower.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005'),(405410,'rcs','00000001.00000157',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',1112937295,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534: This does not mean that Michael Norrish necessarily fills\n the position of Speaker at the present time.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'),(405411,'rcs','00000001.00000158',1531,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003','Administrators of Organizations','Administrators of Organizations',1113455512,'Rule 1531/10 (Power=1)\nAdministrators of Organizations\n\n Each Organization shall have an Administrator, who must be a\n Member. The Administrator of an Organization may only change as\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator is Maintainer of the Charter, unless otherwise\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator is Executor of the Organization, unless\n otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator shall inform the Notary of the following\n changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the\n nature of the change:\n\n a) The Name changes.\n b) The Administrator changes.\n c) The Executor changes.\n d) The Maintainer of the Charter changes.\n e) The jurisdiction of the Charter changes.\n f) The Organization voluntarily dissolves.\n g) The Charter changes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jul. 20 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1531, Aug. 3 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003'),(405412,'rcs','00000001.00000159',1932,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4668 (Quazie, Murphy), 9 April 2005','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1113456837,'Rule 1932/9 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Shares [X], where X is a positive integer. The Holder is\n considered to possess X shares (cumulative with any other\n Cards).\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: One Share\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [1], Handed [2]\n\n * Caption: Two Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [2], Handed [3]\n\n * Caption: Three Shares\n Elements: Budgeted, Shares [3], Handed [4]\n\n * Caption: Corporate Bankruptcy\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Shareholders] [3]\n Exploit: For a fee of 3 kudos, all Stock Cards are returned\n to the Deck.\n\n All cards with the Element \"Shares [X]\" are cumulatively known\n as the Stock Cards.\n\n An entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares\n possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings\n of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share\n Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The\n Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.\n\n * Caption: Divide or Conquer Your Stock\n Quota: 8\n Elements: Restricted [Shareholders]\n Exploit: Specify one or more Share cards in your hand, and\n one or more Share cards in the deck, such that both sets\n consist of the same total number of Shares. The specified\n cards in your hand are transferred to the deck, and the\n specified cards in the deck are transferred to your hand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4668 (Quazie, Murphy), 9 April 2005'),(405413,'rcs','00000001.00000159',1950,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005','Voting Power','Voting Power',1113456837,'Rule 1950/10 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings;\n (2) the Deckmastor: the number of Share Cards in the Deck\n or three, whichever is smaller; plus eir Share\n Holdings (if e is a Shareholder);\n (3) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Player:\n (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player\n has Sente.\n (ii) one otherwise.\n (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is a Shareholder or the Deckmastor at the time e\n casts eir vote.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005'),(405414,'rcs','00000001.00000159',879,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005','Quorum','Quorum',1113456837,'Rule 879/21 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n players cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005'),(405415,'rcs','00000001.00000159',408,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4670 (OscarMeyr), 9 April 2005','Late Judgement','Late Judgement',1113456837,'Rule 408/16 (Power=1)\nLate Judgement\n\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the\n Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by\n announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge\'s Overtime\n Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically\n recused.\n\n A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of\n Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an\n unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2\n plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be\n reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes\n ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly\n requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 215, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2587, May 1 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Aug. 14 1997, susbstantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Rule 408, Aug. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposl 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4670 (OscarMeyr), 9 April 2005'),(405416,'rcs','00000001.00000159',1430,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4664 (Sherlock), 9 April 2005','Mandatory Rule Annotations','Mandatory Rule Annotations',1113456837,'Rule 1430/5 (Power=1)\nMandatory Rule Annotations\n\n Whenever a Rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the Rule giving the type of\n change, the source of the Change (that is, a reference to the\n Proposal and its Proposer (along with any Players explicitly\n named as co-authors in the Proposal), or Rule or other entity\n which mandated the Change) , and the date upon which the change\n took effect. Other Rules may require additional information to\n appear in an annotation for certain types of Rule Change.\n\n Such an annotation does not in any way affect the Rule itself,\n is not part of the text of the Rule, and is not a Rule Change in\n its own regard. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all annotations\n in such a way that they are readily distinguished from the text\n of the Rule.\n\n When a Rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1430 (Kelly), Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2738 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4664 (Sherlock), 9 April 2005'),(405417,'rcs','00000001.00000159',2071,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4666 (Quazie), 9 April 2005','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1113456837,'Rule 2071/5 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2], Delayed [3]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\n * Caption: Discard and Draw\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of\n X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as\n one of the discarded cards.\n\n * Caption: Rebel Rabble\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Rebellious]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week\n on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card\n is played as day #1.\n\n * Caption: Dud Development\n Quota: 2\n Elements: None\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to draw X Cards for\n free.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4627 (root), 4 December 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4666 (Quazie), 9 April 2005'),(405418,'rcs','00000001.00000159',2077,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4663 (root), 9 April 2005','Democratic cards','Democratic cards',1113456837,'Rule 2077/1 (Power=1)\nDemocratic cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Coalition\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Voting Potential of\n an indicated Player by N by paying a fee of N for\n yourself, or 2 times N for another Player.\n\n * Caption: Patronage\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted, Powered [2]\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Political Charge by\n N by paying a fee of 4 times N. If undefined\n elsewhere, the Political Charge is a positive\n integer, tracked by the Assessor, which begins at 4.\n No fee required by the Powered [X] element need be\n paid to activate this exploit.\n\n * Caption: Policy\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may sanitize a Proposal, as described elsewhere\n in the Rules.\n\n * Caption: Procedure\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may abort and make undistributable any non-sane\n Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4623 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4663 (root), 9 April 2005'),(405419,'rcs','00000001.00000159',2086,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005','The University of Agora','The University of Agora',1113456837,'Rule 2086/1 (Power=1)\nThe University of Agora\n\n The University is an Entity.\n\n As President of the University, the Speaker is the sole Executor\n of the University, but may take no action on behalf of The\n University except as explicitly permitted by the Rules.\n\n Education is a stuck Player switch with values Student and\n Faculty Member. The SotU shall flip the Education switch to\n Faculty Member for a Player as soon as possible after that\n Player is awarded a Degree. The SotU is the recordkeepor of\n Education.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005'),(405420,'rcs','00000001.00000159',2091,'Created by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005','The Office of Secretary of the University','The Office of Secretary of the University',1113456837,'Rule 2091/0 (Power=1)\nThe Office of Secretary of the University\n\n The Secretary of the University (SotU) is an office; its holder\n is recordkeepor for the University.\n\n The SotU\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) A list of all active Research Grants;\n\n (b) A list of all active Book club selections;\n\n (c) Each players Education.\n\n (d) A list of who has checked out cards from the library.\n\n (e) The running history of all of the preceding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005'),(405421,'rcs','00000001.00000160',1505,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4672 (Manu), 9 April 2005','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions','Standard Classes of Crimes and Infractions',1113457157,'Rule 1505/12 (Power=1)\nStandard Classes of Crimes and Infractions\n\n A Class N Infraction (where N is replaced with a number) is an\n Infraction for which the penalty is N Blots minus the number of\n Shares owned by the penalized entity at the time of the\n Infraction, with a minimum of 1. Such a penalty is assessed upon\n the execution of a Ticketing Order that Orders the Herald to\n record the penalty.\n\n A Class N Crime (where N is replaced with a number) is a Crime\n for which the penalty is N Blots. Such a penalty is assessed\n upon the execution of a Sentencing Order that Orders the Herald\n to record the penalty.\n\n If such a Sentencing or Ticketing Order is vacated after the\n Herald has already recorded the penalty, then an equal number of\n Blots are expunged from the penalized entity. (If the entity\n has less Blots than the amount of the penalty, then all eir\n Blots are expunged.)\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2431 (favor), Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1505, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4408 (OscarMeyr), 30 October 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4416 (OscarMeyr), 16 November 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4672 (Manu), 9 April 2005'),(405422,'rcs','00000001.00000160',2044,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4671 (Goethe), 9 April 2005','Awardable Degrees','Awardable Degrees',1113457157,'Rule 2044/1 (Power=1)\nAwardable Degrees\n\n The Degree of Associate of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 150 words. A Candidate who already holds an AN Degree receives\n a credit of 100 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree, unless the Candidate also holds a BN Degree.\n\n The Degree of Bachelor of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least\n 500 words. A Candidate who already holds an BN Degree receives\n a credit of 250 words towards the Thesis requirement for any\n higher Degree.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic History requires a Thesis of at\n least 750 words and containing a narrative and analysis of past\n events of specific significance to Agora.\n\n The Degree of Master of Nomic requires a Thesis of at least 750\n words.\n\n The Degree of Doctor of Nomic Philosophy requires a Thesis of at\n least 1000 words, and that the candidate has also published an\n additional creative work authored by emself whose topic or theme\n is related to Agora or Nomic in general.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4671 (Goethe), 9 April 2005'),(405423,'rcs','00000001.00000161',2069,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1115355604,'Rule 2069/3 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Definitions\n\n The Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a\n Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All\n Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each\n individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy\n of that Class of Card.\n\n (a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of\n Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.\n\n (b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time\n fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then\n the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the\n possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a\n Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor\n shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The\n Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the\n Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.\n\n (c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall\n have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the\n Element of that name shall behave according to the\n description associated with that Element. An Element not\n defined in the Rules has no effect.\n\n (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and\n only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e\n meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in\n that Exploit. Any reference to \"you,\" \"your\" or a similar\n pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of\n that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known\n as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is\n automatically transferred to The Deck immediately after\n being Played.\n\n III. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n Discarding a Card is synonymous with transfering said Card\n to The Deck.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made.\n\n A Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand\n Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is\n Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this\n action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times\n during the current month e has previously drawn a card in\n this manner.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005'),(405424,'rcs','00000001.00000161',2077,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4675 (root), 13 April 2005','Democratic cards','Democratic cards',1115355604,'Rule 2077/1 (Power=2)\nDemocratic cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Coalition\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Voting Potential of\n an indicated Player by N by paying a fee of N for\n yourself, or 2 times N for another Player.\n\n * Caption: Patronage\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted, Powered [2]\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Political Charge by\n N by paying a fee of 4 times N. If undefined\n elsewhere, the Political Charge is a positive\n integer, tracked by the Assessor, which begins at 4.\n No fee required by the Powered [X] element need be\n paid to activate this exploit.\n\n * Caption: Policy\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may sanitize a Proposal, as described elsewhere\n in the Rules.\n\n * Caption: Procedure\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may abort and make undistributable any non-sane\n Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4623 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4663 (root), 9 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4675 (root), 13 April 2005'),(405425,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2040,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005','Switches','Switches',1115361693,'Rule 2040/3 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A switch is a set of states associated with a class of entities.\n Each switch shall have a default state, which if not otherwise\n specified shall be the first state mentioned in the rule\n defining the switch.\n\n The recordkeepor for a class of entities shall also maintain\n records of any switches associated with that class, as well as\n the current state of the switch for each entity of the class.\n If the recordkeepor is required to publish a report, that report\n shall include records of these switches. The rules may require\n a different player to maintain and report these records.\n\n Whenever an entity is created in a class of entities associated\n with a switch, it shall be in the state of the switch specified\n by the order or provision creating it; if no state is specified,\n it shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever an entity joins a class of entities associated with a\n switch, the entity shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever an instrument indicates that a switch on an entity is\n set or changed to some state, and the rules do not otherwise\n forbid it, the entity shall come to be in that state and\n simultaneously cease to be in any other state of the switch.\n\n A player who may flip a switch on an entity to some state other\n than the current state of the switch may do so by announcement.\n In eir announcement, e must indicate the entity, switch, and new\n state. Upon this announcement, provided it is valid, the switch\n is set to the named state.\n\n A switch is loose unless the rules define it as stuck.\n\n An executor of an entity may flip any of the loose switches on\n that entity, unless the rules otherwise prohibit doing so.\n\n The stuck switches on an entity can be flipped only when the\n rules so indicate.\n\n Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class\n of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously\n been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue\n to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in\n the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever a state ceases to be a state of a switch, all entities\n in the class that had previously been in that state shall be\n flipped to the default state of the switch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405426,'rcs','00000001.00000162',478,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005','Fora','Fora',1115361693,'Rule 478/14 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion,\n and Public. A forum\'s Publicity may not be changed except as\n described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of a\n forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on\n this action, the Registrar\'s announcement of intent must be sent\n to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the\n announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification\n must be sent to all existing Public fora.\n\n It is the responsibility of each active player to ensure that e\n can receive messages via each Public forum.\n\n The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or\n Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to\n allow players to receive messages via that medium. The\n Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state.\n\n A message is not public unless some rule states that it is\n public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum,\n or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and\n contains a clear designation of intent to be public.\n\n A player publishes information by publicly sending a message\n containing that information, and announces something by\n publishing it.\n\n If the rules state that a player may perform an action by\n announcement, then that player may perform that action by\n announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a player\n may perform an action by private message to some player, then\n that player may perform that action by sending a message\n privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it.\n In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the\n action to be performed.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.\n CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.\n CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.\n CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: \"In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405427,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1079,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005','Definition of \"Random\"','Definition of \"Random\"',1115361693,'Rule 1079/4 (Power=1)\nDefinition of \"Random\"\n\n (a) When a Rule requires a random choice to be made, then the\n choice shall be made using whatever probability distribution\n among the possible outcomes the Rules provide for making\n that choice. If the Rules do not specify a probability\n distribution, then a uniform probability distribution shall\n be used.\n\n (b) Where the Rules do not indicate who is required to make a\n particular random choice, it shall be made by the Speaker.\n\n (c) When making a random choice as required by the Rules, a\n Player may rely on any physical or computational process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules.\n\n (d) For the purposes of this Rule, tossing a platonic solid that\n is not specially weighted has a probability distribution\n among the possible outcomes that is reasonably close to\n uniform.\n\n (e) For other methods, the Courts are the final arbiter of\n whether a method\'s probability distribution among the\n possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by\n the Rules.\n\n[CFJ 790 contains a detailed discussion on what does and does not\n qualify as a random choice.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1079, ca. Oct. 11 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1648, Aug. 6 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2806, Feb. 8 1997, substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4368 (Steve), 29 August 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005'),(405428,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1787,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4677 (root), 18 April 2005','April Fool\'s Day','April Fool\'s Day',1115361693,'Rule 1787/1 (Power=1)\nApril Fool\'s Day\n\n A break from all the stress and strife\n and matters of much gravity,\n is what this Nomic sorely needs:\n a dithyramb to levity!\n\n In order that, just once a year,\n our hearts be light and gay,\n Let April Fool\'s Day, every year\n become a Holiday!\n\n And should it one day be observed\n by any wag who breaks a Rule,\n the Speaker will one Boon award\n to em who was the biggest Fool.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3695 (Steve), Mar. 3 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4677 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405429,'rcs','00000001.00000162',869,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005','Registered Players','Registered Players',1115361693,'Rule 869/15 (Power=1)\nRegistered Players\n\n Any person who is not registered as a player may do so by\n sending a message to a public forum announcing that e registers\n as a player. Unless other rules provide additional necessary\n conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the\n rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e\n immediately becomes a registered player.\n\n Readiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and\n unready.\n\n An unready player may flip eir readiness to ready.\n\n Whenever a player registers, and that player has not previously\n been registered as a player in Agora at any time within the 365\n previous days, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace\n Period that begins at the time of eir registration and lasts\n sixty days, not including Holidays. A player is only subject to\n the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration.\n\n Whenever a Player\'s Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready.\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005'),(405430,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2094,'Created by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005','Corporate Players','Corporate Players',1115361693,'Rule 2094/0 (Power=1)\nCorporate Players\n\n A collective of two or more persons (a Hive) none of whom is\n currently registered as a player may jointly register as a\n single player. A Hive is subject to a Grace Period only if each\n of its members would have been subject to a Grace Period had e\n registered as an individual at the time the Hive registered.\n\n This rule takes precedence over rule 869.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005'),(405431,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2098,'Created by Proposal 4701 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','May Day','May Day',1115361693,'Rule 2098/0 (Power=1)\nMay Day\n\n A Worker is any player who is not an Officer.\n\n On the First of May, any worker may remove any officer from an\n office by public declaration. The declaring worker becomes the\n holder although not electee of that office, providing e is\n otherwise eligible to hold the Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4701 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405432,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1686,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4695 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Official Reports','Official Reports',1115361693,'Rule 1686/13 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an\n Office\'s Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An Office\'s Weekly\n Reports and Monthly Reports constitute the Office\'s Official\n Report. All information that is part of an Office\'s Official\n Report shall be maintained by the corresponding officer.\n\n The rules may specify conditions under which a player is mauve;\n that player is not mauve unless the rules explicitly state at\n least one such condition and all such conditions are satisfied.\n As soon as possible after a player becomes mauve, the Speaker\n shall announce this fact. The only condition for mauveness is\n being nicknamed Blob.\n\n Each officer with a Weekly Report must publish it weekly unless\n the content of the report would substantially be the same as in\n the previously published report. In this case, a report must\n only be published within one week of the next substantial change\n to the report\'s content, but must at least be published once per\n month. Each officer with a Monthly Report must publish it\n monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction of Failure\n to Report. If an officer fails to do so for at least three\n consecutive reporting periods, e may be cited for either Failure\n to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of Duty but\n not both. Any officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is\n immediately removed from that office. The Assistant Director of\n Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4489 (root), 6 May 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4655 (Kolja), 29 March 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4695 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405433,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1664,'Amended(28) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005','Rebellion','Rebellion',1115361693,'Rule 1664/28 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Rebellious player may Call for a Revolt at any time by\n publicly announcing e does so. A Call for Revolt is only\n effective if no other Call for Revolt has been made that week\n and no successful Revolt has occurred for a month or more.\n\n As soon as possible after an effective Call for Revolt has been\n posted, the Registrar must determine whether the Revolt\n succeeds, as outlined below, and publicly announce the result.\n\n The Registrar shall select a random integer from 1 to the number\n of players (plus 1 if Miscreant is Borne). If this number is\n less than or equal to the number of Rebellious players (plus\n 1 if Miscreant is Borne by a Rebellious player), then the\n Revolt succeeds; otherwise it fails. All numbers used in this\n calculation are determined at the time of the Call for Revolt.\n\n If a Revolt succeeds, then the following events occur in order:\n\n - The Registrar shall expunge the Blots of each Rebellious\n player\n - The Registrar shall grant the ephemeral Patent Title Rebel\n Hero to each Rebellious player.\n - All Stock Cards in the possession of Abiding Players are\n returned to the Deck, and the initiative of each Abiding\n Player is set to Gote.\n - Each Abiding player that is the Electee to an Office is\n retired from that Office.\n - All Rebellious players become Abiding again\n - If the Speaker is not Rebellious, A Speaker Transition\n occurs\n\n If a Revolt does not succeed, then:\n\n - All Rebellious players gain 2 Blots.\n - The player who Called for Revolt gains 2 (additional) Blots\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the Political\n Status of players at the time of the Call.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all Blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(25) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(26) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(27) by Proposal 4686 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(28) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405434,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1940,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4697 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',1115361693,'Rule 1940/8 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n The boon of Public Service exists for the purpose of awarding\n Officers for serving.\n\n Paperwork is a stuck switch for Offices with states Low and\n High. The Assistant Director of Personnel is the recordkeepor\n for paperwork. For the purpose of this rule, the Speaker and\n the Distributor are considered offices. The Assistant Director\n of Personnel or the Speaker may switch the paperwork of an\n office with two supporters and without two objections.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n Assistant Director of Personnel shall award 1 Public Service\n Boon for each office to the player (if any) who held that office\n for 16 or more days in the previous month; e shall award an\n additional Public Service boon to that player if the office is a\n high paperwork office.\n\n Each office may make one Proposal distributable per month\n without payment of a fee, by the electee of that office publicly\n invoking that office\'s Civil Service Exemption.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4361 (Steve), 16 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4697 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405435,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1952,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4702 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',1115361693,'Rule 1952/4 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n Depth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and\n distributable.\n\n A player may flip the depth of a Proposal that e proposed to\n distributable by paying a fee equal to its Distribution Cost.\n\n A player may flip the depth of a Proposal that e did not propose\n to distributable by paying a fee equal to its Distribution Cost\n minus one (minimum zero).\n\n A player may flip the depth of any Proposal to undistributable\n by paying a fee equal to twice its Distribution Cost.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4702 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405436,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2078,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005','Takeover Proposals','Takeover Proposals',1115361693,'Rule 2078/1 (Power=2)\nTakeover Proposals\n\n Initiative is a stuck player switch, tracked by the Assessor,\n with values Gote and Sente.\n\n A Takeover Proposal is a proposal meeting these requirements:\n\n (a) It is labelled as a Takeover Proposal.\n (b) No Takeover Proposal has been submitted earlier in the\n same month.\n (c) It specifies a set of players (hereafter the Corporate\n Raiders) that is no larger than P/2 or smaller than P/3,\n where P is the number of active noisy players at the time\n of submission.\n\n Rules to the Contrary nonwithstanding, a Takeover Proposal is\n both Democratic and Sane.\n\n At the beginning of a Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, the\n initiative of each player is set to Gote. At the end of a\n Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, the initiative of each player\n is set as follows:\n (a) Adopted: All Corporate Raiders gain Sente.\n (b) Rejected: All other players gain Sente.\n (c) Failed quorum: No one gains Sente.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405437,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1950,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005','Voting Power','Voting Power',1115361693,'Rule 1950/11 (Power=2)\nVoting Power\n\n (a) An entity\'s Voting Power on an Ordinary Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Shareholder: eir Share Holdings;\n (2) the Deckmastor: the number of Share Cards in the Deck\n or three, whichever is smaller; plus eir Share\n Holdings (if e is a Shareholder);\n (3) Any other entity: zero.\n\n (b) An entity\'s Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as\n follows:\n (1) A Player:\n (i) that Player\'s Voting Potential if that Player\n has Sente.\n (ii) one otherwise.\n (2) Any other entity: as defined in the Rules, with a\n default of zero if the Rules don\'t specify the Voting\n power on a Democratic Proposal for that entity.\n\n (c) The value of an entity\'s Voting Power for any given Chamber\n at the beginning of each Week shall be in effect for all\n Proposals distributed during that Week. However, if a\n Proposal\'s Chamber is changed after it has been distributed,\n the Voting Power of each entity for that Proposal is\n redetermined at the time the Chamber is changed.\n\n (d) An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal,\n in any combination, up to the limit determined by that\n entity\'s Voting Power on that Proposal, with the exceptions\n that:\n (1) no Player may vote on an Ordinary Proposal unless e\n is a Shareholder or the Deckmastor at the time e\n casts eir vote.\n\n Other rules with Power of at least 2 may modify a player\'s\n Voting Power.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005'),(405438,'rcs','00000001.00000162',683,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005','Voting on Proposals','Voting on Proposals',1115361693,'Rule 683/11 (Power=1)\nVoting on Proposals\n\n A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do\n so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is\n casting on that Proposal. A Voter may change or cancel eir vote\n or votes during the Voting Period by informing the Assessor.\n\n A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN\n (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not\n one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005'),(405439,'rcs','00000001.00000162',879,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005','Quorum','Quorum',1115361693,'Rule 879/21 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three\n players cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it.\n\n (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third\n of all active noisy players cast votes on it.\n\n (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from\n the number of active noisy players at the time that the\n proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a\n democratic proposal, whichever is later.\n\nCFJ 1562 (Judged TRUE, 6 May 2005): \"A cancelled vote on a Proposal\n does not count towards quorum.\"\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005'),(405440,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2095,'Created by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties',1115361693,'Rule 2095/0 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\'s Boon Duties\n\n * If a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was submitted by a\n Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor\n shall award the Proposor the Boon of Prodigy.\n\n * If an Interested Democratic Proposal passes, and no Votes were\n cast AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor\n the Boon of Zeitgeist.\n\n * If a proposal submitted on Guy Fawkes Day is adopted then the\n Assessor shall award the proposer the boon of a penny.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405441,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1434,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting',1115361693,'Rule 1434/13 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Referendum Voting\n\n When a Referendum Vote is required and the procedure is not\n defined elsewhere, the following Standard Referendum Voting\n Procedure shall be used. Details specified herein are defaults\n which may be modified by other Rules for specific situations.\n\n This procedure shall under no circumstances be used for Voting\n on Proposals, unless specifically required by the Rules\n governing specific types of Proposals.\n\n * Vote Collector: The Vote Collector is responsible for\n collecting and tallying the Votes, and announcing the results.\n The Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the Referendum\n begins.\n\n * Disappearance of Vote Collector: If the Vote Collector\n deregisters or is deregistered before announcing the results\n of the Referendum, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Voters: For the purpose of this Rule, a Voter is an entity\n permitted to Vote on a Referendum. Only Active Players are\n Voters. Activity is measured at the time a Vote is sent.\n\n * Voting: A Voter Votes by sending eir Vote to the Vote\n Collector during the Voting Period, indicating what Referendum\n e is Voting on, and what eir Vote is.\n\n * Vote Values: A Vote is FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN. Words which\n are effectively synonymous with these are also permissible.\n\n * Vote Strength: Every Vote has equal strength. No Voter may\n Vote more than once on any single Referendum.\n\n * Retraction: During the Voting period a Voter may change or\n cancel any Vote e has sent to the Vote Collector by notifying\n the Vote Collector.\n\n * Start of Voting: The Voting Period begins at the time of the\n first correct and legal public announcement that a Referendum\n has begun, as defined in other Rules. Such an announcement\n must include the identity of the Vote Collector.\n\n * Duration of Voting: The Voting Period lasts for one Week. All\n Votes received by the Vote Collector outside of the Voting\n Period have no effect.\n\n * Secrecy During Voting: At any time, the Vote Collector may\n publish a list of Voters who have Voted. However, the Vote\n Collector shall not reveal the value of any Voter\'s Vote to\n anyone but that Voter, unless e has the Voter\'s permission to\n do so.\n\n * Announcement of Results: As soon as possible after the end of\n the Voting Period, the Vote Collector shall announce the\n number of Votes of each kind, as well as the name and Vote of\n each Entity that Voted. If e does not do this as soon as\n possible, then the Referendum fails.\n\n * Quorum: Quorum is one third of the eligible Voters at the\n beginning of the Voting Period. If fewer Voters Vote, then\n the Referendum fails.\n\n * Adoption Index: The Adoption Index of a Referendum is 1.\n\n * Adoption Ratio: The Adoption Ratio of a Referendum is the\n ratio of FOR Votes to AGAINST Votes. If the Adoption Ratio is\n greater than the Adoption Index (or if both are Unanimity),\n and if the Referendum does not fail for some other reason,\n then it passes; otherwise, it fails.\n\n * Effectiveness: A Referendum takes effect when the Vote\n Collector correctly announces that it passes. The effect of a\n Referendum is defined by other Rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1456, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2585, May 1 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2783 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4629 (Murphy), 19 December 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005'),(405442,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1868,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1115361693,'Rule 1868/3 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding\n judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor\n denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.\n\n As soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no\n Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a\n Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial\n Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e\n is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.\n\nCFJ 1186 (Judged TRUE, Dec. 9 1999): \"The Clerk of the Courts is\n required by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time\n that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\n eligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\n identity of that Player is announced.\"\n\n[CFJ 1187, Judged TRUE Dec. 8 1999: \"A Judge is considered to be\n assigned to Judge a particular CFJ at the time that the Clerk of the\n Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and no sooner.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(405443,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2099,'Created by Proposal 4701 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Spring Break','Spring Break',1115361693,'Rule 2099/0 (Power=1)\nSpring Break\n\n The Caller of any Call for Judgement made on March 21 is\n eligible to judge that same CFJ, even if other Rules would make\n em ineligible. The Clerk of the Courts must choose the Caller\n to be the Trial Judge of that CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4701 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405444,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1871,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005','Turns for All','Turns for All',1115361693,'Rule 1871/7 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Orientation is a stuck player switch with values unturned and\n turned.\n\n Whenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any\n future CFJs.\n\n Whenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and\n there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall publish a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least\n one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players\n become unturned.\n\n The CotC may flip the Orientation of players e expects to judge\n CFJs slowly or not at all to turned, without 2 objections.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405445,'rcs','00000001.00000162',910,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','The Justiciar','The Justiciar',1115361693,'Rule 910/12 (Power=1)\nThe Justiciar\n\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice, serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary, and for\n maintaining a record of organizations and their jurisdictions.\n\n The Justiciar\'s monthly report shall contain the following\n information for each organization:\n\n a) Its name.\n b) Its administrator.\n c) Its executor.\n d) The maintainer of its charter.\n e) A list of players within its jurisdiction.\n f) The charter of each organization.\n\n In addition, as soon as possible after the Justiciar is informed\n of a change in any of the properties a-f above for an\n organization, the Justiciar shall report the change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 910, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1581, May 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2569, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405446,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2068,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','The Deckmastor','The Deckmastor',1115361693,'Rule 2068/2 (Power=1)\nThe Deckmastor\n\n The Deckmastor is an office which acts as the recordkeepor for\n Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of\n all Cards in existence and what entity possesses each Card.\n\n The Deckmastor shall have a budget containing the Maximum Hand\n Size and the Minimum Hand Size, each of which is a positive\n integer between 2 and 10, with the Minimum being less than the\n Maximum. In the absence of a budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall\n be 5 and the Minimum Hand Size shall be 2.\n\n The Deck and the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor shall\n be the sole Executor of both entities, but may take no action on\n behalf of them except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The\n Deck and Discard Pile may not transfer cards to any other entity\n except as explicitly required by the Rules.\n\n Only the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards, and e may do if\n and only if the Rules require it by announcing the Card being\n created or destroyed and the entity who either possesses it now\n or possessed it at the time of destruction as appropriate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405447,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2069,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1115361693,'Rule 2069/4 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Definitions\n\n The Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a\n Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All\n Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each\n individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy\n of that Class of Card.\n\n (a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of\n Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.\n\n (b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time\n fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then\n the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the\n possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a\n Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor\n shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The\n Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the\n Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.\n\n (c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall\n have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the\n Element of that name shall behave according to the\n description associated with that Element. An Element not\n defined in the Rules has no effect.\n\n (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and\n only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e\n meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in\n that Exploit. Any reference to \"you,\" \"your\" or a similar\n pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of\n that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known\n as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is\n automatically transferred to the Discard Pile immediately\n after being Played.\n\n III. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n If a Gambler transfers a card to the Deck, it is instead\n transferred to the discard pile, unless the transfer is made\n as part of the Deckmastor\'s required duties. Discarding a\n Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to the Discard\n Pile.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made. If, at any time, the number of pending draws for all\n gamblers is greater than the number of cards in the Deck,\n then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of the cards in the\n Discard Pile to the Deck before dealing any cards. This\n transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is performed as a\n single action.\n\n A Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand\n Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is\n Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this\n action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times\n during the current month e has previously drawn a card in\n this manner.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405448,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2070,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4678 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Card Powerz','Card Powerz',1115361693,'Rule 2070/4 (Power=1)\nCard Powerz\n\n The following Elements for Cards are defined:\n\n * Budgeted: The Quota for this Card is determined in the\n Deckmastor\'s budget. If the budget is undefined, or does not\n set the Quota for this Card, then the Quota shall be 3.\n\n * Handed [X], where X is a non-negative integer: When\n calculating Hand Size, this Card counts as X Cards.\n\n * Restricted [X], where X is a type of entity: Only entities\n considered to be an X may Activate any Exploit possessed by\n the Card.\n\n * Limited [X] [Y], where X is a type of entity and Y is a\n positive integer: For an entity not considered to be an X to\n Activate any Exploit possessed by the Card requires em to pay\n a Fee of Y.\n\n * Persistent: Playing this Card does not result in its being\n transferred to The Deck.\n\n * Delayed[N]: You may not play this card if you have played a\n copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.\n\n * Asleep[N]: No one may play a copy of this card if anyone has\n played a copy of this card in the past N times 24 hours.\n\n * Powered [X], where X is a positive integer: This Card has a\n Power of X. To Activate any Exploit possessed by this Card, a\n Fee of X - 1 must be paid in addition to any other Fees\n required to Activate that Exploit, unless that Exploit\n explicitly specifies otherwise.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4631 (root), 19 December 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4678 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405449,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2067,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4687 (Quazie, Manu), 18 April 2005','Cards in Play','Cards in Play',1115361693,'Rule 2067/4 (Power=2)\nCards in Play\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Distrib-u-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Cause any one Proposal to become Distributable.\n\n * Caption: Absolv-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: If you are immaculate, you may expunge\n N blots from an entity for a fee of N-1. Otherwise, you may\n expunge one blot from an entity for no fee.\n\n * Caption: Debate-o-Matic\n Elements: Budgeted, Powered [2]\n Exploit: Change the Chamber of any one non-Sane Proposal to\n the Chamber of your choice, provided it is legal for that\n Proposal to be in the named Chamber.\n\n * Caption: Two for One\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: For a fee of one Kudo make 2 undistributable\n proposals, provided that each has a Distribution Cost of 1,\n distributable.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4569 (Wes), 2 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4631 (root), 19 December 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4682 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4687 (Quazie, Manu), 18 April 2005'),(405450,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2076,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Card cards','Card cards',1115361693,'Rule 2076/2 (Power=1)\nCard cards\n\n Caption: Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the\n next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of\n Delay of Game, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Discard Picking\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[4]\n Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the\n past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that\n card, if one is still in the discard pile, is\n automatically transferred from the discard pile to\n your hand.\n\n Caption: Enforced Charity\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[3]\n Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice\n to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2\n Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Drop your Weapon\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that\n Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Presto!\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[7]\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically transferred to your hand,\n provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Not Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[2]\n Exploit: You may specify a card play that has occurred\n in the past 48 hours, and (1) that card shall be\n deemed to have not been played, and (2) the gambler\n who originally played that card may not play a copy\n of that card for the next 72 hours.\n\n Caption: Reshuffle\n Quota: 3\n Elements: Asleep[15]\n Exploit: The Deckmastor must Reshuffle before dealing any\n cards.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4678 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405451,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2093,'Created by Proposal 4692 (root), 18 April 2005','The New Raffle','The New Raffle',1115361693,'Rule 2093/0 (Power=1)\nThe New Raffle\n\n The following class of cards is defined:\n\n * Caption: Raffle Ticket\n Elements: Grafty\n\n As soon as possible after the 13th day of the third month of\n each quarter, the Deckmastor shall randomly select a copy of a\n Raffle Ticket in the possession of a Player and announce eir\n selection, unless no such copy exists. Upon this announcement,\n the Player in possession gains three instances of the ephemeral\n Patent Title \"Fortune\'s Fool\", and each Raffle Ticket in the\n possession of a Player is automatically discarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4692 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405452,'rcs','00000001.00000162',649,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1115361693,'Rule 649/16 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation\n which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly\n announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and\n which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or\n persons.\n\n Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states\n Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without\n Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to\n Hysterical Significance.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405453,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2049,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005','Ephemera','Ephemera',1115361693,'Rule 2049/1 (Power=1)\nEphemera\n\n A Patent Title has Ephemeral significance if the rules state\n that the Patent Title is ephemeral. Karma is a stuck switch for\n ephemeral patent titles with states Boon and Albatross.\n Defining something to be a \'boon\' or an \'albatross\' is\n equivalent to defining it to be an ephemeral Patent Title with\n its Karma set as defined, and the Karma of a title defined in\n this way is said to be Static. A Static Karma switch may never\n be changed except by modifying its definition. A Karma switch\n that is not Static is said to be Dynamic.\n\n Players may be permitted or required by the Rules to award or\n revoke Boons or Albatrosses. If so, these awards are performed\n by public announcement by the specified Players.\n\n A Player may hold multiple instances of a given type of\n ephemeral Patent title; if so, The Herald need only note the\n number of instances of these Patent Titles that each player\n holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405454,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2096,'Created by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Ephemeral Time Limits','Ephemeral Time Limits',1115361693,'Rule 2096/0 (Power=1)\nEphemeral Time Limits\n\n If an Ephemeral Patent Title is earned between one week before\n the designated end of the last Quarter and one week before the\n end of the current Quarter then it must be awarded before the\n turning of a new parchment. For every one of these Ephemeral\n Patent Titles that has not been awarded by the end of the\n turning whomever is responsible for awarding the Ephemeral\n Patent Title commits the Class .1 Infraction of Ephemeral\n Nondisclosure which in the case of Boons is reportable by\n whomever did not receive eir Boon, or for Albatrosses any\n player.\n\n The announcement that a proposal does not earn the proposer the\n Boon of Tapecutter must also follow these time restrictions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405455,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2092,'Created by Proposal 4688 (root), 18 April 2005','Honorary Degrees','Honorary Degrees',1115361693,'Rule 2092/0 (Power=2)\nHonorary Degrees\n\n A degree may be awarded by the operation of an adopted Proposal\n whose Power is at least two to any person who is not registered\n as a Player and who does not already bear that degree. The\n Proposal must specify both the recipient of the degree and the\n degree to be awarded. For a degree to be awarded in this\n manner, the recipient need not complete a Thesis, but all other\n requirements specific to the degree in question must be\n satisfied.\n\n Degrees awarded as described in this rule shall be marked as\n honorary degrees in the Herald\'s report. A person bearing an\n honorary degree may still be awarded the same degree by other\n rule-defined mechanisms. When this occurs, the person shall\n cease to bear the honorary degree and shall bear the new degree\n in its place.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4688 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405456,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2051,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005','Tabla Rasa','Tabla Rasa',1115361693,'Rule 2051/2 (Power=2)\nTabla Rasa\n\n The Herald\'s Budget shall consist of a positive integer between\n 5 and 25, known as the Tabla Rasa.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each quarter, the\n Herald shall announce the Turning of a New Parchment.\n\n The effect of such an announcement is to:\n (A) set each Player\'s kudos equal to:\n (i) the Tabla Rasa;\n (ii) plus the number of boons e holds;\n (iii) minus the number of albatrosses e holds;\n (iv) minus one for every 3 Blots e has.\n\n (B) revoke all ephemeral Patent Titles.\n\n (C) set each Dynamic Karma switch to its original state.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005'),(405457,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1531,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Administrators of Organizations','Administrators of Organizations',1115361693,'Rule 1531/11 (Power=1)\nAdministrators of Organizations\n\n Each Organization shall have an Administrator, who must be a\n Member. The Administrator of an Organization may only change as\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator is Maintainer of the Charter, unless otherwise\n specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator is Executor of the Organization, unless\n otherwise specified by its Charter or by the Rules.\n\n The Administrator shall inform the Justiciar of the following\n changes as soon as possible after they occur, and identify the\n nature of the change:\n\n a) The Name changes.\n b) The Administrator changes.\n c) The Executor changes.\n d) The Maintainer of the Charter changes.\n e) The jurisdiction of the Charter changes.\n f) The Organization voluntarily dissolves.\n g) The Charter changes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jul. 20 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Rule 1531, Aug. 3 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4510 (Sherlock), 10 July 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405458,'rcs','00000001.00000162',1533,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Application to Create an Organization','Application to Create an Organization',1115361693,'Rule 1533/14 (Power=1)\nApplication to Create an Organization\n\n An Application to Create an Organization (ACO) shall be\n submitted to the Justiciar.\n\n To be valid, an ACO must specify all properties that an\n Organization is required to have. Other Rules may place further\n conditions on the validity of ACOs for a specific Class of\n Organization.\n\n The effect of submitting a valid ACO is to create the\n prospective Organization, with the Sponsor and signatories as\n Foundors and initial Members.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2035, Dec. 4 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2421, Jan. 30 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2525, Mar. 10 1996\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, May 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2633, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2725, Oct. 23 1996\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Aug. 24 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1533, Sep. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4181 (Murphy), 9 July 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405459,'rcs','00000001.00000162',2097,'Created by Proposal 4700 (Goethe), 18 April 2005','Card-Carrying Contests','Card-Carrying Contests',1115361693,'Rule 2097/0 (Power=1)\nCard-Carrying Contests\n\n A contest may be made into a Card-Carrying Contest by its\n contestmaster acting with two support and without two\n objections. A player may only be contestmaster of one\n card-carrying contest at a time.\n\n A Card-Carrying Contest is a gambler, and may perform the\n following actions only as explicitly permitted by its\n regulations:\n 1. As long as the contest has at least three members and its\n hand size is less than the maximum hand size, it may draw\n a number of cards each month equal to its number of\n members at the beginning of the month divided by two and\n rounded up.\n 2. Transfer or discard cards.\n\n A Card-Carrying Contest may not play cards.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4700 (Goethe), 18 April 2005'),(405460,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2100,'Created by Proposal 4710 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Promotor\'s Ex-Lax','Promotor\'s Ex-Lax',1115616327,'Rule 2100/0 (Power=1)\nPromotor\'s Ex-Lax\n\n The Promotor may make all proposals in the Proposal Pool\n distributable without 4 objections and then paying a fee of\n three Kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4710 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405461,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2085,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4704 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Mute Exemption','Mute Exemption',1115616327,'Rule 2085/1 (Power=1)\nMute Exemption\n\n A Legislator who is Mute may, with two support, submit a body of\n text with Mute Exemption. This text becomes a Proposal if it\n meets all rule requirements for a Proposal other than the\n Proposer not being Mute.\n\n As soon as possible after a Proposal with Mute Exemption passes,\n the Assessor shall expunge a number of Blots from the Proposer\n equal to the Adoption Index of the Proposal. The Proposer shall\n receive no Boons that may have awarded by other rules for the\n passing of the Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4649 (Quazie), 22 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4704 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405462,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2071,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4709 (Manu), 18 April 2005','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1115616327,'Rule 2071/6 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2], Delayed [3]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\n * Caption: Discard and Draw\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of\n X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as\n one of the discarded cards.\n\n * Caption: Rebel Rabble\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Rebellious]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week\n on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card\n is played as day #1.\n\n * Caption: Dud Development\n Quota: 2\n Elements: None\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to draw X Cards for\n free.\n\n * Caption: Police State\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Abiding]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, decrease the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for seven days. Count the day this\n Card is played as day #1.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4627 (root), 4 December 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4666 (Quazie), 9 April 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4709 (Manu), 18 April 2005'),(405463,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2076,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Card cards','Card cards',1115616327,'Rule 2076/3 (Power=1)\nCard cards\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n Caption: Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the\n next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of\n Delay of Game, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Discard Picking\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[4]\n Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the\n past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that\n card, if one is still in the discard pile, is\n automatically transferred from the discard pile to\n your hand.\n\n Caption: Enforced Charity\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[3]\n Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice\n to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2\n Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Drop your Weapon\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that\n Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Presto!\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[7]\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically transferred to your hand,\n provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Not Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[2]\n Exploit: You may specify a card play that has occurred\n in the past 48 hours, and (1) that card shall be\n deemed to have not been played, and (2) the gambler\n who originally played that card may not play a copy\n of that card for the next 72 hours.\n\n Caption: Reshuffle\n Quota: 3\n Elements: Asleep[15]\n Exploit: The Deckmastor must Reshuffle before dealing any\n cards.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4678 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405464,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2079,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4703 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Discord','Discord',1115616327,'Rule 2079/1 (Power=1)\nDiscord\n\n The following card is defined:\n\n Caption: Chaos Apple\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed[5], Delayed[7], Kallisti!\n Exploit: If this card has not been Played in the current\n quarter, then, as soon as possible after this card is\n played, the Deckmastor shall simultaneously transfer\n all cards from non-Deck hands to a temporary Gambler\n known as Fate. E shall then deal cards at random from\n Fate to each Gambler until each Gambler has the same\n number of cards as e had immediately before Fate took a\n hand. If, between the time this card is Played and the\n time Fate\'s cards are dealt, exactly a single Player\n publicly claims to be The Prettiest One, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer this card to em as soon as possible\n after Fate\'s cards are dealt. The Deckmastor is\n encouraged use Heisenberg\'s Law in dealing hands from\n Fate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4630 (Goethe), 19 December 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4703 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405465,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2084,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Cash Cards','Cash Cards',1115616327,'Rule 2084/3 (Power=1)\nCash Cards\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Greedy Bastard\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Gain one Kudo, but also gain the Albatross of Greed.\n\n * Caption: Charity Brings Happiness\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: For a fee of one Kudo you may indicate any other\n player to gain one Kudo, as long as they have fewer Kudos\n than you do and is not yourself. Upon doing this you gain\n the boon of Charity.\n\n * Caption: Thieves in the Night\n Element: Grafty, Delayed[5]\n Exploit: Provided that fewer than half of all Players have a\n Thieves in the Night card in their hand, and the player you\n indicate does not have a Thieves in the Night card in their\n hand, that player losses one Kudo and you gain one Kudo.\n For each of the aforementioned stipulations that is false\n upon the playing of this card, you gain the Albatross of\n Thief.\n\n * Caption: Instant Gratification\n Elements: Restricted [Players with at least one Boon], Budgeted\n Exploit: Indicate one of your own Boons. You instantly lose\n that Boon and gain 1 Kudo.\n\n * Caption: Instant Punishment\n Elements: Restricted [Players with at least one Albatross],\n Budgeted\n Exploit: Indicate one of your own Albatrosses. You instantly\n lose that Albatross and Lose 1 Kudo.\n\n * Caption: Instant Millionaire\n Quota: 1\n Exploit: Lose all of your Boons, but gain twice that number of\n Kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4647 (Quazie), 22 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4705 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4711 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405466,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2101,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Library Cards','Library Cards',1115616327,'Rule 2101/1 (Power=1)\nLibrary Cards\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Library Renewal\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Upon playing this card you may indicate a number\n 1 through 5. ASAP after you do this the speaker must\n randomly discard that many cards from the Library\'s\n hand that are not reserved. If the Speaker has\n discarded all non reserved cards then e does not need\n to discard any more.\n\n * Caption: Library Card\n Elements: Budgeted, Limited [Faculty Members][1]\n Exploit: Check a card out from the Library for no fee.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4712 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405467,'rcs','00000001.00000163',1922,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1115616327,'Rule 1922/9 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\n (d) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005'),(405468,'rcs','00000001.00000163',2089,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4706 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Gardner Library','Gardner Library',1115616327,'Rule 2089/1 (Power=1)\nGardner Library\n\n The University (hereafter the Library) is a Gambler. Whenever\n the Library has fewer than five Cards, the Deckmastor shall as\n soon as possible deal randomly chosen Cards to the Library until\n it has five cards.\n\n A Player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified Card\n from the Library by paying a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. The\n fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The\n Card is considered reserved and may not be checked out by any\n Player until it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.\n\n Immediately after a Card is checked out from the Library it is\n transfered from the Library to the Borrower.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4706 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405469,'rcs','00000001.00000164',2084,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005','Cash Cards','Cash Cards',1115616389,'Rule 2084/3 (Power=1)\nCash Cards\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Greedy Bastard\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: Gain one Kudo, but also gain the Albatross of Greed.\n\n * Caption: Charity Brings Happiness\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: For a fee of one Kudo you may indicate any other\n player to gain one Kudo, as long as they have fewer Kudos\n than you do and is not yourself. Upon doing this you gain\n the boon of Charity.\n\n * Caption: Thieves in the Night\n Element: Grafty, Delayed[5]\n Exploit: Provided that fewer than half of all Players have a\n Thieves in the Night card in their hand, and the player you\n indicate does not have a Thieves in the Night card in their\n hand, that player losses one Kudo and you gain one Kudo.\n For each of the aforementioned stipulations that is false\n upon the playing of this card, you gain the Albatross of\n Thief.\n\n * Caption: Instant Gratification\n Elements: Restricted [Players with at least one Boon],\n Budgeted\n Exploit: Indicate one of your own Boons. You instantly lose\n that Boon and gain 1 Kudo.\n\n * Caption: Instant Punishment\n Elements: Restricted [Players with at least one Albatross],\n Budgeted\n Exploit: Indicate one of your own Albatrosses. You instantly\n lose that Albatross and Lose 1 Kudo.\n\n * Caption: Instant Millionaire\n Quota: 1\n Exploit: Lose all of your Boons, but gain twice that number of\n Kudos.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4647 (Quazie), 22 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4705 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4711 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005'),(405470,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2103,'Created by Proposal 4725 (root), 25 April 2005','Sanitizing Proposals','Sanitizing Proposals',1115964383,'Rule 2103/0 (Power=2)\nSanitizing Proposals\n\n When a non-Sane Proposal in the Pool is Sanitized, it becomes\n Democratic and Sane.\n\n When a non-Sane Proposal whose Voting Period has begun but has\n not yet ended is Sanitized, it is Aborted as described\n elsewhere, and the copy resulting from the Abortion remains\n Distributable but becomes Democratic and Sane.\n\n A Proposal may only be Sanitized by the operation of an\n Instrument whose Power is at least 2.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4725 (root), 25 April 2005'),(405471,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2102,'Created by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005','Extraordinary Proposals','Extraordinary Proposals',1115964383,'Rule 2102/0 (Power=1)\nExtraordinary Proposals\n\n When an ordinary proposal becomes extraordinary, it is\n immediately aborted, and the copy of it that is added to the\n proposal pool due to the abortion becomes democratic and\n distributable.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005'),(405472,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2021,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4725 (root), 25 April 2005','Chamber Procedure','Chamber Procedure',1115964383,'Rule 2021/5 (Power=2)\nChamber Procedure\n\n (a) The Chamber Fee for a Proposal is a Fee for changing the\n Chamber of a Proposal. For any given Proposal, the Chamber\n Fee is initially 1. When a Proposal\'s Chamber is changed\n via this Rule, the Chamber Fee for the Proposal is doubled.\n\n (b) An Untainted Speaker, with 2 Supporters, may Sanitize a\n Distributed Proposal that is not already Sane and for which\n the Voting Period has not ended.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4725 (root), 25 April 2005'),(405473,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2019,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1115964383,'Rule 2019/2 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n At any time during the voting period of an ordinary proposal,\n the Speaker may veto that proposal with the support of one-third\n of all shareholders, rounded down. When e does so, the proposal\n becomes extraordinary.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005'),(405474,'rcs','00000001.00000165',1965,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005','Complacent Corporation','Complacent Corporation',1115964383,'Rule 1965/4 (Power=2)\nComplacent Corporation\n\n As soon as possible after an ordinary proposal fails quorum, the\n Assessor shall publish a Notice of Complacency to that effect.\n In addition, at any time during the voting period of an ordinary\n proposal for which the number of entities eligible to vote on\n the proposal is less than the quorum of the proposal, the\n Assessor may immediately publish a Notice of Complacency without\n waiting for the proposal\'s voting period to end.\n\n When the Assessor publishes a Notice of Complacency for a\n proposal, it becomes extraordinary.\n\n Publication by the Assessor of a Notice of Complacency not\n strictly authorized or required by this rule is the Class 2\n Crime of Sending It Back Where It Don\'t Belong.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4161 (Steve), 5 June 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4487 (root), 28 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005'),(405475,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2071,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4722 (Quazie), 25 April 2005','Wacky Cards','Wacky Cards',1115964383,'Rule 2071/7 (Power=1)\nWacky Cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Albatross Flies Away\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Limited [Immaculate Players] [3]\n Exploit: You may revoke one of your own Albatrosses.\n\n * Caption: Dud\n Elements: Budgeted, Persistent\n Exploit: You may wish in your own mind that you had a\n luckier Draw.\n\n * Caption: Player Stasis\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: A Player of your choice is unable to Play a Card for\n the next 88 hours.\n\n * Caption: Hot Potato\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Persistent\n Exploit: Transfer this Card to another entity. If that entity\n does not post to a Public Forum the phrase \"Hot Potato\"\n within 48 hours, they are guilty of the Class 1 Infraction\n of Dropping the Potato which you are authorized to Report.\n\n * Caption: It\'s a Surprise!\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed [2], Delayed [3]\n Exploit: You may Draw two Cards without paying a Fee.\n\n * Caption: Discard and Draw\n Quota: 1\n Elements: None\n Exploit: Discard X cards from your hand. For a fee of\n X Kudos, draw X cards. Do not include this card as\n one of the discarded cards.\n\n * Caption: Rebel Rabble\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Rebellious]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, increase the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for 10 days (which is one week\n on the Revolutionary Calendar). Count the day this Card\n is played as day #1.\n\n * Caption: Dud Development\n Quota: 2\n Elements: None\n Exploit: You may discard X Dud Cards to draw X Cards for\n free.\n\n * Caption: Police State\n Elements: Budgeted,\n Restricted [Abiding]\n Exploit: For a fee of N Kudos, where N is the current number\n of Rebellious Players, decrease the effective number of\n Rebellious Players by 1 for seven days. Count the day this\n Card is played as day #1.\n\n * Caption: Loot the Dead\n Quota: 1\n Exploit: You may indicate one silent player. All of eir cards\n are immediately discarded from their hand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4574 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4607 (Goethe), 8 August 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4611 (OscarMeyr), 10 September 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4627 (root), 4 December 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4666 (Quazie), 9 April 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4709 (Manu), 18 April 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4722 (Quazie), 25 April 2005'),(405476,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2077,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4725 (root), 25 April 2005','Democratic cards','Democratic cards',1115964383,'Rule 2077/2 (Power=2)\nDemocratic cards\n\n The following Classes of Cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Coalition\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Voting Potential of\n an indicated Player by N by paying a fee of N for\n yourself, or 2 times N for another Player.\n\n * Caption: Patronage\n Elements: Grafty, Budgeted, Powered [2]\n Exploit: You may increase or decrease the Political Charge by\n N by paying a fee of 4 times N. If undefined\n elsewhere, the Political Charge is a positive\n integer, tracked by the Assessor, which begins at 4.\n No fee required by the Powered [X] element need be\n paid to activate this exploit.\n\n * Caption: Policy\n Elements: Budgeted, Powered [2]\n Exploit: You may sanitize a Proposal, as described elsewhere\n in the Rules.\n\n * Caption: Procedure\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may abort and make undistributable any non-sane\n Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4623 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4663 (root), 9 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4675 (root), 13 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4725 (root), 25 April 2005'),(405477,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2079,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4729 (Quazie), 25 April 2005','Discord','Discord',1115964383,'Rule 2079/2 (Power=1)\nDiscord\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n Caption: Chaos Apple\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed[5], Delayed[7], Kallisti!\n Exploit: If this card has not been Played in the current\n quarter, then, as soon as possible after this card is\n played, the Deckmastor shall simultaneously transfer\n all cards from non-Deck hands to a temporary Gambler\n known as Fate. E shall then deal cards at random from\n Fate to each Gambler until each Gambler has the same\n number of cards as e had immediately before Fate took a\n hand. If, between the time this card is Played and the\n time Fate\'s cards are dealt, exactly a single Player\n publicly claims to be The Prettiest One, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer this card to em as soon as possible\n after Fate\'s cards are dealt. The Deckmastor is\n encouraged use Heisenberg\'s Law in dealing hands from\n Fate.\n\n Caption: Chaos Reborn\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed[2], Kallisti!\n Exploit: If Chaos Apple has been Played in the current\n quarter, then, you may play Chaos Apple within five\n minutes of playing this card as if Chaos Apple did not\n have the words \"If this card has not been Played in the\n current quarter\" in its exploit.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4630 (Goethe), 19 December 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4703 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4729 (Quazie), 25 April 2005'),(405478,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2086,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005','The University of Agora','The University of Agora',1115964383,'Rule 2086/2 (Power=1)\nThe University of Agora\n\n The University is an Entity.\n\n The Speaker is President and Limited Executor of the\n University.\n\n Education is a stuck Player switch with values Student and\n Faculty Member. The SotU shall flip the Education switch to\n Faculty Member for a Player as soon as possible after that\n Player is awarded a Degree. The SotU is the recordkeepor of\n Education.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005'),(405479,'rcs','00000001.00000165',2089,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005','Gardner Library','Gardner Library',1115964383,'Rule 2089/4 (Power=1)\nGardner Library\n\n \"The Library\" is a synonym for \"The University\".\n\n The Library is a Gambler. Whenever the Library has fewer than\n five Cards, the Deckmastor shall as soon as possible deal\n randomly chosen Cards to the Library until it has five cards.\n\n A Player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified Card\n from the Library by paying a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. The\n fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The\n Card is considered reserved and may not be checked out by any\n Player until it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.\n\n Immediately after a Card is checked out from the Library it is\n transfered from the Library to the Borrower.\n\n The President of the University may discard any card in the\n possession of the Library without two objections.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4706 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4715 (Goethe), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4726 (root), 25 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005'),(405480,'rcs','00000001.00000166',1922,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1116226207,'Rule 1922/9 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\n (d) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005'),(405481,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2105,'Created by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1116483180,'Rule 2105/0 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GREAT BARRIER REEF\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | |\n / | | \\\n / O <- L. DISAPPOINTMENT |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\\n / | | | <- BRISBANE\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ |\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE ->\n \\ __/ \\_ / /\nPERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | /\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n | | \\__/\n \\___=_ ___|\n MELBOURNE -> \\/\n\n /\\__\n | |\n | /\n \\_/ <- HOBART\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005'),(405482,'rcs','00000001.00000167',1727,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1116483180,'Rule 1727/14 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June\n 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by First\n Speaker Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think\n we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules\n are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was\n played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its official\n name of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the\n hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent\n advice of Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, as soon as possible after the end\n of Agora\'s Birthday, the Herald shall award the boon of\n celebration to each Player who, during Agora\'s Birthday,\n publicly recognized Agora\'s Birthday;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Herald may select one Contract,\n in existence on Agora\'s Birthday, which has as its purpose\n encouraging the celebration of Agora\'s Birthday. Within the\n month following Agora\'s Birthday, that Contract may award its\n Members the Patent Title Nth Anniversary Ribbon, where N is the\n number of years of Agora\'s existence;\n\n BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Courts shall be closed on\n Agora\'s Birthday; that is, the Clerk of the Courts shall not\n publish any Calls For Judgement, Judgements, notices of\n Appeals, Decisions of Appeals Boards, or Opinions, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit to the Clerk of the\n Courts a Call For Judgement, notice of ineligibility to Judge,\n Judgement, call for Appeal, or Appellate Decision, on Agora\'s\n Birthday; nor shall any Player submit an Application to Submit\n an Opinion on Agora\'s Birthday; however, if any of the above do\n take place on Agora\'s Birthday, in violation of this Rule, this\n Rule does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405483,'rcs','00000001.00000167',1724,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005','Urgent Proposals','Urgent Proposals',1116483180,'Rule 1724/9 (Power=1)\nUrgent Proposals\n\n A Proposal is Urgent if the text of the message wherein it is\n submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal.\n\n An Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.\n\n The Promotor may distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it\n becomes Distributable, and e is required to do so within five\n days. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Lack of\n Urgency, which may be reported by any Player.\n\n The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the\n time the Proposal is distributed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3508 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3922 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3945 (Peekee), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005'),(405484,'rcs','00000001.00000167',1953,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005','Sane Proposals','Sane Proposals',1116483180,'Rule 1953/3 (Power=2)\nSane Proposals\n\n A Proposal is Sane if all the following conditions are met:\n\n i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted\n explicitly states that it is a Sane Proposal, or it has\n been declared a Sane Proposal by other methods explicitly\n stated in the Rules,\n\n ii) The Proposal is Democratic.\n\n A Sane Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1.\n\n On Sane Proposals, each Player has a Voting Power of one, unless\n e has five or more Blots, in which case eir Voting Power is\n zero; all other entities have a Voting Power of zero on Sane\n Proposals.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which determine the\n Voting Power of entities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4139 (Ziggy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4145 (Ian), Apr. 22 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005'),(405485,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2078,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4751 (The Goddess Eris), 5 May 2005','Takeover Proposals','Takeover Proposals',1116483180,'Rule 2078/2 (Power=2)\nTakeover Proposals\n\n Initiative is a stuck player switch, tracked by the Assessor,\n with values Gote and Sente.\n\n A Takeover Proposal is a proposal meeting these requirements:\n\n (a) It is labelled as a Takeover Proposal.\n (b) No Takeover Proposal has been submitted earlier in the\n same month.\n (c) It specifies a set of players (hereafter the Corporate\n Raiders) that is no larger than P/2 or smaller than P/3,\n where P is the number of active noisy players at the time\n of submission.\n\n Rules to the Contrary nonwithstanding, a Takeover Proposal is\n both Democratic and Sane.\n\n Upon submission of a Takeover Proposal, all other Takeover\n Proposals become Undistributable and are removed from the Pool.\n\n At the beginning of a Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, the\n initiative of each player is set to Gote. At the end of a\n Takeover Proposal\'s voting period, the initiative of each player\n is set as follows:\n\n (a) Adopted: All Corporate Raiders gain Sente.\n (b) Rejected: All other players gain Sente.\n (c) Failed quorum: No one gains Sente.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4751 (The Goddess Eris), 5 May 2005'),(405486,'rcs','00000001.00000167',910,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005','The Justiciar','The Justiciar',1116483180,'Rule 910/13 (Power=1)\nThe Justiciar\n\n The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n justice, serving on a Board of Appeals when necessary.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 910, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1447, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1581, May 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2569, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4698 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405487,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2068,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005','The Deckmastor','The Deckmastor',1116483180,'Rule 2068/3 (Power=1)\nThe Deckmastor\n\n The Deckmastor is an office which acts as the recordkeepor for\n Cards. The Deckmastor\'s Weekly Report shall contain a record of\n all Cards in existence and what entity possesses each Card.\n\n The Deckmastor shall have a budget containing the Maximum Hand\n Size and the Minimum Hand Size, each of which is a positive\n integer between 2 and 10, with the Minimum being less than the\n Maximum. In the absence of a budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall\n be 5 and the Minimum Hand Size shall be 2.\n\n The Deck and the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor shall\n be the sole Executor of both entities, but may take no action on\n behalf of them except as explicitly permitted by the Rules. The\n Deck and Discard Pile may not transfer cards to any other entity\n except as explicitly required by the Rules.\n\n Only the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards not in eir Trial\n Run, and e may do if and only if the Rules require it by\n announcing the Card being created or destroyed and the entity\n who either possesses it now or possessed it at the time of\n destruction as appropriate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005'),(405488,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2069,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1116483180,'Rule 2069/6 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Definitions\n\n The Rules may define a Class of Card by specifying a Caption, a\n Quota, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits. All\n Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible. Each\n individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a Copy\n of that Class of Card.\n\n (a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of\n Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.\n\n (b) The Quota shall be a non-negative integer. If at any time\n fewer Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then\n the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that Card in the\n possession of The Deck. If at any time more Copies of a\n Class of Cards exist than its Quota, then the Deckmastor\n shall destroy a Copy of that Card in the possession of The\n Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in which case the\n Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.\n\n (c) The Rules may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall\n have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the\n Element of that name shall behave according to the\n description associated with that Element. An Element not\n defined in the Rules has no effect.\n\n (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and\n only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e\n clearly indicates the card whose Exploit e is performing and\n e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in\n that Exploit. Any reference to \"you,\" \"your\" or a similar\n pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of\n that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known\n as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule says otherwise, a Card is\n automatically transferred to the Discard Pile immediately\n after being Played.\n\n III. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n If a Gambler transfers a card to the Deck, it is instead\n transferred to the discard pile, unless the transfer is made\n as part of the Deckmastor\'s required duties. Discarding a\n Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to the Discard\n Pile.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made. Whenever a player makes a true announcement that the\n number of pending draws for all gamblers is greater than the\n number of cards in the Deck, or that there are no cards in\n the Deck, then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of the\n cards in the Discard Pile to the Deck before dealing any\n cards. This transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is\n performed as a single action.\n\n A Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand\n Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is\n Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this\n action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times\n during the current month e has previously drawn a card in\n this manner.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005'),(405489,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2106,'Created by Proposal 4738 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Card Fees','Card Fees',1116483180,'Rule 2106/0 (Power=1)\nCard Fees\n\n All fees associated with Card Actions, Elements and Exploits\n must be paid as soon as possible by the Gambler incurring the\n fee. For every Kudo not paid on time, the Gambler commits the\n Class 1 Infraction of Debt Overdue, which may be reported by any\n Player.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all rules pertaining to Cards\n fees.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4738 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405490,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2075,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4740 (Quazie), 5 May 2005','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1116483180,'Rule 2075/3 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and five\n Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size\n at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.\n\n If a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any\n particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to\n announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular\n Patent Title Champion.\n\n Exactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all\n Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen.\n\n If no one has won the game in the last six months, then any\n Gambler may announce a Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of\n a true announcement of a win above, except that no boon shall be\n awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4740 (Quazie), 5 May 2005'),(405491,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2076,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005','Card cards','Card cards',1116483180,'Rule 2076/3 (Power=1)\nCard cards\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n Caption: Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the\n next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of\n Delay of Game, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Discard Picking\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[4]\n Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the\n past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that\n card, if one is still in the discard pile, is\n automatically transferred from the discard pile to\n your hand.\n\n Caption: Enforced Charity\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[3]\n Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice\n to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2\n Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Drop your Weapon\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that\n Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Presto!\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[7]\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically transferred to your hand,\n provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Not Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[2]\n Exploit: You may specify a card play that has occurred\n in the past 48 hours, and (1) that card shall be\n deemed to have not been played, and (2) the gambler\n who originally played that card may not play a copy\n of that card for the next 72 hours.\n\n Caption: Reshuffle\n Quota: 3\n Elements: Asleep[15]\n Exploit: You may perform a Reshuffle.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4678 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005'),(405492,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2079,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005','Discord','Discord',1116483180,'Rule 2079/3 (Power=1)\nDiscord\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n Caption: Chaos Apple\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed[5], Delayed[7], Kallisti!\n Exploit: If this card has not been played in the current\n quarter, then you may simultaneously transfer all cards\n that are not in the Deck or Discard Pile to a temporary\n Gambler known as Fate. As soon as possible after this\n card is played, the Deckmastor shall then deal cards at\n random from Fate to each Gambler until each Gambler has\n the same number of cards as e had immediately before\n Fate took a hand. If, between the time this card is\n Played and the time Fate\'s cards are dealt, exactly a\n single Player publicly claims to be The Prettiest One,\n the Deckmastor shall transfer this card to em as soon\n as possible after Fate\'s cards are dealt. The\n Deckmastor is encouraged use Heisenberg\'s Law in\n dealing hands from Fate.\n\n Caption: Chaos Reborn\n Quota: 1\n Elements: Handed[2], Kallisti!\n Exploit: If Chaos Apple has been Played in the current\n quarter, then, you may play Chaos Apple within five\n minutes of playing this card as if Chaos Apple did not\n have the words \"If this card has not been Played in the\n current quarter\" in its exploit.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4630 (Goethe), 19 December 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4703 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4729 (Quazie), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005'),(405493,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2080,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005','Cards for Proposals','Cards for Proposals',1116483180,'Rule 2080/2 (Power=1)\nCards for Proposals\n\n If a Proposal is adopted, the Proposer may draw from the deck by\n announcing the Proposal number while drawing, provided that e\n does so within a week after the proposal\'s adoption and that e\n has not already done so for the same proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005'),(405494,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2101,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005','Library Cards','Library Cards',1116483180,'Rule 2101/2 (Power=1)\nLibrary Cards\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n * Caption: Library Renewal\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: You may indicate a number 1 through 5. As soon as\n possible after you do this the Speaker must randomly\n discard that many cards from the Library\'s hand. If\n there are fewer cards in the Library\'s hand then the\n number you indicate the Speaker must discard them\n all.\n\n * Caption: Library Card\n Elements: Budgeted, Limited [Faculty Members][1]\n Exploit: Check a card out from the Library for no fee.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4712 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005'),(405495,'rcs','00000001.00000167',1922,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4736 (Quazie), 5 May 2005','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1116483180,'Rule 1922/10 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\n (d) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (e) Hyperactive, to be awarded to any player who has more than\n 10 proposals pass in one week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4736 (Quazie), 5 May 2005'),(405496,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2096,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Card-Carrying Contracts','Card-Carrying Contracts',1116483180,'Rule 2096/1 (Power=1)\nCard-Carrying Contracts\n\n A Contract may be made into a Card-Carrying Contract by its\n Notary acting with two support and without two objections. A\n player may only be Notary of one Card-Carrying Contract at a\n time.\n\n A Card-Carrying Contract is a gambler, and may perform the\n following actions only as explicitly permitted by its\n regulations:\n\n 1. As long as the Contract has at least three Members and its\n hand size is less than the maximum hand size, it may draw a\n number of cards each month equal to its number of Members at\n the beginning of the month divided by two and rounded up.\n\n 2. Transfer or discard cards.\n\n A Card-Carrying Contract may not play cards.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405497,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2104,'Created by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005','Contreras Card Labs','Contreras Card Labs',1116483180,'Rule 2104/0 (Power=1)\nContreras Card Labs\n\n The University encourages Card experimentation.\n\n A Player may publish a piece of text and note that it is a Card\n Blueprint. If this text contains a Caption, a copy of that Card\n is created in the possession of the Library. The Card Blueprint\n may also specify Elements and Exploits, as defined by other\n rules, and these are included on the Card in the same way they\n would be if they were included on a rules-defined Card.\n\n Cards created by this method have a Quota of 1 and are\n considered to be in eir Trial Run. A Card in its Trial Run may\n not be checked out of the Library until seven days have passed\n since its creation. Any player may destroy a Card in its Trial\n Run by announcing e does so.\n\n A Card in its Trial Run is transferred to the Library after it\n is played.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005'),(405498,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2107,'Created by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Contracts','Contracts',1116483180,'Rule 2107/0 (Power=1)\nContracts\n\n There exists a type of agreement known as a Contract. A\n Contract is an Entity. The content of a Contract is called its\n Regulations. The first Player to announce the creation of a\n Contract is its Executor and is known as the Notary of that\n Contract. Any other Player may decide to become part of a\n Contract by notifying that Contract\'s Notary. Players party to\n a Contract, including the Notary, are the Members of this\n Contract. A Member may leave a Contract at any time by\n notifying the Notary.\n\n A Contract may contain any number of Regulations. Regulations\n have the power to constrain the actions of Players in the same\n manner as the Rules. However, Regulations have power over only\n those Players that are Members of that Contract. All Members\n are required to abide by the Regulations, unless doing so would\n violate the Rules. Violation of this requirement is the Class 1\n Crime of Insubordination. A Contract may include in its\n Regulations ways for Players to leave the Contract.\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player shall ever\n involuntarily become a Member of a Contract.\n\n If the Notary of a Contract becomes Silent, all Members of this\n Contract cease to be Members of this Contract and the Contract\n ceases to exist.\n\n Only Members of a Contract may CFJ that a Member has violated\n that Contract. All Members of a Contract are automatically\n ineligible to Judge a CFJ that a Member has violated that\n Contract.\n\n All Rules regulating agreements that are inconsistent with this\n Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405499,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2108,'Created by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Contract Maintenance','Contract Maintenance',1116483180,'Rule 2108/0 (Power=1)\nContract Maintenance\n\n The Notary of a given Contract must provide a copy of its\n Regulations to any other Player who requests it, as soon as\n possible after the request is made. The Notary of a Contract\n must also provide an updated copy of the Regulations to all\n Members as soon as possible after the Regulations change for any\n reason. Regulations can not be changed except in accordance\n with the Rules. Regulations are permitted to define their own\n mechanisms for changing their own content, and any change to\n Regulations adopted in accordance with their own mechanisms is\n legal.\n\n The Notary may, without objection, change the Regulations\n provided e sends a copy of the new Regulations to all Members as\n soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405500,'rcs','00000001.00000167',2109,'Created by Proposal 4755 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Agoran Contracts','Agoran Contracts',1116483180,'Rule 2109/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Contracts\n\n There exists a type of Contract known as Agoran Contract. An\n Agoran Contract is a Contract between any two entities. An\n Agoran Contract may only be created or amended by a Proposal and\n becomes effective when the Proposal takes effect. Unless\n otherwise specified in the Rules or Regulations, All Players are\n automatically Members of Agoran Contracts and no Player may\n leave an Agoran Contract.\n\n All Rules regulating Contracts that are inconsistent with this\n Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.\n\n The ADoP is required to keep track of all Agoran Contracts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4755 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405501,'rcs','00000001.00000169',1922,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1116567957,'Rule 1922/9 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for one Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Filthy Bureaucrat, to be awarded to any player who at some\n point simultaneously holds and is Electee to three or more\n Offices. This Patent Title is revoked from a player who\n ceases to hold and be Electee to three or more Offices.\n\n (d) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005'),(405502,'rcs','00000001.00000170',2105,'Created by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1117452664,'Rule 2105/0 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GREAT BARRIER REEF\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | |\n / | | \\\n / O <- L. DISAPPOINTMENT |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\\n / | | | <- BRISBANE\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ |\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE ->\n \\ __/ \\_ / /\n PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | /\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n | | \\__/\n \\___=_ ___|\n MELBOURNE -> \\/\n\n /\\__\n | |\n | /\n \\_/ <- HOBART\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005'),(405503,'rcs','00000001.00000171',1042,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4758 (Quazie), 15 May 2005','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1118036282,'Rule 1042/21 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and\n silent.\n\n A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public\n forum.\n\n An active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from\n noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within\n the past 24 hours.\n\n If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the\n game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the\n player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4758 (Quazie), 15 May 2005'),(405504,'rcs','00000001.00000171',1764,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005','Modes of Voting','Modes of Voting',1118036282,'Rule 1764/13 (Power=1)\nModes of Voting\n\n There are three classes of Issues: Proposals, Elections, and\n Referenda.\n\n (a) There are three possible modes of voting on Issues: Public,\n Private and Unrestricted. If not otherwise defined, the\n prevailing mode for each class of Issue is Public.\n\n (b) (1) The Assessor may change the prevailing mode of voting\n for Proposals, with Support.\n\n (2) The Assistant Director of Personnel may change the\n prevailing mode of voting for Elections, with Support.\n\n (3) The prevailing mode of Referenda is always Public.\n\n (c) When the Voting Period on an Issue begins, the mode of\n voting for that particular Issue is permanently set to the\n prevailing mode for that class of Issue.\n\n (d) (1) If the mode of voting is Public, then any other Rule to\n the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes,\n or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that\n Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message to the\n Public Forum.\n\n (2) If the mode of voting is Private, then any other Rule\n to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any\n votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters\n on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a\n message privately to the Vote Collector.\n\n (3) If the mode of voting is Unrestricted, then any other\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of\n any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters\n on that Issue, may be achieved by sending a message\n either publicly or privately.\n\n (e) If the mode of voting is Private or Unrestricted, then the\n status of any votes cast privately is secret until the end\n of the voting period. Any player who knowingly reveals the\n status of any vote to any player besides the Assessor\n commits the Crime of Unlawful Vote Disclosure, a Class 5\n Crime.\n\n[CFJ 1124, Judged TRUE Apr. 26 1999: \"Votes sent to the\n agora-discussion mailing list are neither \'sent publically\' nor \'sent\n privately\', and so are not valid when voting is Unrestricted.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3658 (Steve), Jan. 8 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3757 (Steve), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Rule 1764, Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3780 (Steve), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(4) by Rule 1764, Oct. 12 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3834 (Blob), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3952 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005'),(405505,'rcs','00000001.00000172',2095,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties',1118036564,'Rule 2095/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\'s Boon Duties\n\n * If a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was submitted by a\n Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor\n shall award the Proposor the Boon of Prodigy, unless the\n Proposor has already received five or more such awards.\n\n * If an Interested Democratic Proposal passes, and no Votes were\n cast AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor\n the Boon of Zeitgeist.\n\n * If a proposal submitted on Guy Fawkes Day is adopted then the\n Assessor shall award the proposer the boon of a penny.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005'),(405506,'rcs','00000001.00000172',2080,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005','Cards for Proposals','Cards for Proposals',1118036564,'Rule 2080/3 (Power=1)\nCards for Proposals\n\n If a Proposal is adopted, the Proposer may draw from the deck by\n announcing the Proposal number while drawing; so long as the\n Proposer\'s Hand Size is smaller than the Maximum Hand Size plus\n the number of Offices e holds, the Proposer performs the draw\n within a week after the proposal\'s adoption, and the Proposer\n has not already done so for the same proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005'),(405507,'rcs','00000001.00000173',1686,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005','Official Reports','Official Reports',1118037694,'Rule 1686/15 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an\n Office\'s Weekly Report, Bi-Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An\n Office\'s Weekly Reports, Bi-Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports\n constitute the Office\'s Official Report. All information that\n is part of an Office\'s Official Report shall be maintained by\n the corresponding officer.\n\n Each officer with a Weekly Report must publish it weekly unless\n the content of the report would substantially be the same as in\n the previously published report. In this case, a report must\n only be published within one week of the next substantial change\n to the report\'s content, but must at least be published once per\n month. Each officer with a Bi-Weekly Report must publish it\n once every two weeks and each officer with a Monthly Report must\n publish it monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction\n of Failure to Report. If an officer fails to do so for at least\n three consecutive reporting periods, e may be cited for either\n Failure to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of\n Duty but not both. Any officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is\n immediately removed from that office. The Assistant Director of\n Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4489 (root), 6 May 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4655 (Kolja), 29 March 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4695 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005'),(405508,'rcs','00000001.00000173',1758,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005','Holding an Office in Perpetuity','Holding an Office in Perpetuity',1118037694,'Rule 1758/7 (Power=1)\nHolding an Office in Perpetuity\n\n If a Player is the Electee to an Office which e currently holds,\n then the Associate Director of Personnel may declare, Without\n Objection, that that Player holds that Office in perpetuity.\n The Player then holds the Office in perpetuity.\n\n The Term of Service of an Office held in perpetuity shall never\n expire, and a Player holding an Office in perpetuity continues\n to hold the Office in perpetuity while e holds the Office. If\n a Player holding an Office in perpetuity delegates the Office\n to another Player, and e is still the Electee to the Office at\n the end of the Period of Delegation, then e resumes holding the\n Office in perpetuity.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over other Rules defining the expiry\n of an Office\'s Term of Service.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3637 (Blob), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3707 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Aug. 14 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405509,'rcs','00000001.00000173',790,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005','Filling Vacant Offices','Filling Vacant Offices',1118037694,'Rule 790/13 (Power=1)\nFilling Vacant Offices\n\n As soon as possible after\n\n a) an Office ceases to have an Electee;\n b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or\n c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale;\n\n the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an\n Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This\n requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee.\n\n The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Associate\n Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is\n that of Associate Director of Personnel; in that case, the\n designated conductor is the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 790, ca. Dec. 20 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2454, Feb. 6 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 28 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2639, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405510,'rcs','00000001.00000173',1975,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005','The Associate Director of Personnel','The Associate Director of Personnel',1118037694,'Rule 1975/6 (Power=1)\nThe Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is\n responsible for holding elections for offices.\n\n The ADoP\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all offices;\n\n (b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on\n which e most recently became electee to that office;\n\n (c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not\n the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date\n on which e most recently became holder of that office;\n\n (d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for\n that office ends, or an indication that the office is held\n in perpetuity;\n\n (e) the identity of the Speaker, and the date of the next\n quarterly Speaker transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4267 (root), 22 March 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005'),(405511,'rcs','00000001.00000173',1940,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',1118037694,'Rule 1940/9 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n The boon of Public Service exists for the purpose of awarding\n Officers for serving.\n\n Paperwork is a stuck switch for Offices with states Low and\n High. The Associate Director of Personnel is the recordkeepor\n for paperwork. For the purpose of this rule, the Speaker and\n the Distributor are considered offices. The Associate Director\n of Personnel or the Speaker may switch the paperwork of an\n office with two supporters and without two objections.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the\n Associate Director of Personnel shall award 1 Public Service\n Boon for each office to the player (if any) who held that office\n for 16 or more days in the previous month; e shall award an\n additional Public Service boon to that player if the office is a\n high paperwork office.\n\n Each office may make one Proposal distributable per month\n without payment of a fee, by the electee of that office publicly\n invoking that office\'s Civil Service Exemption.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4361 (Steve), 16 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4697 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405512,'rcs','00000001.00000173',1764,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005','Modes of Voting','Modes of Voting',1118037694,'Rule 1764/14 (Power=1)\nModes of Voting\n\n There are three classes of Issues: Proposals, Elections, and\n Referenda.\n\n (a) There are three possible modes of voting on Issues: Public,\n Private and Unrestricted. If not otherwise defined, the\n prevailing mode for each class of Issue is Public.\n\n (b) (1) The Assessor may change the prevailing mode of voting\n for Proposals, with Support.\n\n (2) The Associate Director of Personnel may change the\n prevailing mode of voting for Elections, with Support.\n\n (3) The prevailing mode of Referenda is always Public.\n\n (c) When the Voting Period on an Issue begins, the mode of\n voting for that particular Issue is permanently set to the\n prevailing mode for that class of Issue.\n\n (d) (1) If the mode of voting is Public, then any other Rule to\n the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any votes,\n or the declaration of Presence, by Voters on that\n Issue, may only be achieved by sending a message to the\n Public Forum.\n\n (2) If the mode of voting is Private, then any other Rule\n to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of any\n votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters\n on that Issue, may only be achieved by sending a\n message privately to the Vote Collector.\n\n (3) If the mode of voting is Unrestricted, then any other\n Rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the casting of\n any votes, or the declaration of Presence, by Voters\n on that Issue, may be achieved by sending a message\n either publicly or privately.\n\n (e) If the mode of voting is Private or Unrestricted, then the\n status of any votes cast privately is secret until the end\n of the voting period. Any player who knowingly reveals the\n status of any vote to any player besides the Assessor\n commits the Crime of Unlawful Vote Disclosure, a Class 5\n Crime.\n\n[CFJ 1124, Judged TRUE Apr. 26 1999: \"Votes sent to the\n agora-discussion mailing list are neither \'sent publically\' nor \'sent\n privately\', and so are not valid when voting is Unrestricted.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3658 (Steve), Jan. 8 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3757 (Steve), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Rule 1764, Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3780 (Steve), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(4) by Rule 1764, Oct. 12 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3834 (Blob), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3952 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405513,'rcs','00000001.00000173',1558,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005','Defaults for Elections for Offices','Defaults for Elections for Offices',1118037694,'Rule 1558/8 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections for Offices\n\n When the Rules require that an Election be conducted to fill\n an Office, that Election shall be conducted in accordance with\n the usual Rules for Elections, with the following exceptions:\n\n * The Vote Collector is the Associate Director of Personnel at\n the time the Election begins, unless the Election seeks to\n fill the Office of Associate Director of Personnel, in which\n case the Vote Collector is the Speaker at the time the\n Election begins.\n\n * No Player may be Nominated who, at the time of attempted\n Nomination, would not be permitted to hold the Office which\n the Election is seeking to fill.\n\n * If the Vote Collector fails to meet an ASAP requirement to\n publish a list of Candidates, or the identity of the winning\n Candidate, then the Election/Referendum does not fail, but\n becomes Stale. If a new Election for the same Office is\n initiated, then the stale Election/Referendum fails.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3628 (Murphy), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4509 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405514,'rcs','00000001.00000173',889,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1118037694,'Rule 889/13 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following:\n (i) Each Player\'s Orientation.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005'),(405515,'rcs','00000001.00000173',559,'Amended(24) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005','The Registrar','The Registrar',1118037694,'Rule 559/24 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the\n following information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date on\n which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) each player\'s Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most\n recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet,\n or Silent; and\n\n (vii) the identity of the Distributor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4616 (OscarMeyr), 1 October 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005'),(405516,'rcs','00000001.00000173',2075,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4764 (root), 25 May 2005','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1118037694,'Rule 2075/4 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall contain between one and five\n Winning Hands, each of which is a list of cards with a hand size\n at least two greater than the Maximum Hand Size.\n\n If a Gambler\'s Hand is identical to a winning hand at any\n particular moment, any Gambler has 72 hours from that moment to\n announce that a Gambler holds or has held a winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular\n Patent Title Champion.\n\n Exactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all\n Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen.\n\n If no true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has been\n made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a\n Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of\n a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4740 (Quazie), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4764 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405517,'rcs','00000001.00000173',402,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005','Speaker Transition','Speaker Transition',1118037694,'Rule 402/11 (Power=1)\nSpeaker Transition\n\n Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the\n Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds\n as follows:\n\n (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses\n all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a\n result of being Speaker;\n\n (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition\n commences, the Associate Director of Personnel shall\n publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the\n reason for the Transition and the Player who held the\n Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition\n commenced;\n\n (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is\n correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice\n causes the Player identified in it to cease being the\n Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes\n the process of Speaker Transition.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405518,'rcs','00000001.00000173',2073,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005','Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?','Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?',1118037694,'Rule 2073/2 (Power=1)\nQuis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?\n\n Whenever the Speaker is Electee to the Office of Associate\n Director of Personnel, e is retired from that Office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4613 (Murphy), 10 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005'),(405519,'rcs','00000001.00000174',2110,'Created by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1118038029,'Rule 2110/0 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n If the legality of an action cannot be determined with finality,\n or if by a Judge\'s best reasoning, not appealed within a week of\n eir Judgement, an action appears equally legal and illegal, then\n the Speaker shall award the Patent Title of Champion to the\n first Player to publicly note that condition. The Herald shall\n record that this Title was achieved \"by paradox\" in eir report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005'),(405520,'rcs','00000001.00000175',1042,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4791 (Quazie), 6 June 2005','Deregistration Due to Silence','Deregistration Due to Silence',1119614893,'Rule 1042/22 (Power=1)\nDeregistration Due to Silence\n\n Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and\n silent.\n\n The noisiness of an active player may not be changed if e has\n posted to a public forum in the past 120 hours.\n\n A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public\n forum.\n\n An active player may flip another active player\'s noisiness from\n noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within\n the past 24 hours.\n\n If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or\n inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent.\n\n Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying\n another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the\n game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the\n player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1012, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1042, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 21 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1338, Nov. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1466, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1597, Jun. 2 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2506, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2568, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3578 (Steve), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Dec. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Rule 1042, Jan. 6 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), Apr. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4758 (Quazie), 15 May 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4791 (Quazie), 6 June 2005'),(405521,'rcs','00000001.00000175',2036,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','The Silent Treatment','The Silent Treatment',1119614893,'Rule 2036/2 (Power=1)\nThe Silent Treatment\n\n (a) The publication of a Notice of Abandonment commences the\n Silent Treatment for the player identified in it.\n\n (b) The requirement to perform the actions described in this\n Rule is subject to the Notice of Abandonment remaining\n valid. If at any time during the Silent Treatment the of\n Abandonment is invalid, then the Treatment is terminated,\n and the Registrar is relieved of all powers and\n responsibilities regarding it.\n\n (c) As soon as possible after the commencement of the Silent\n Treatment, the Registrar shall:\n\n (1) publicly confirm whether the Notice of Abandonment was\n valid at the commencement of the Silent Treatment, and\n whether it remains valid;\n\n (2) publish in all designated Public Fora, and send to each\n listed e-mail address of the player, a Notice of Intent\n to Deregister, identifying the player to be deregistered\n (the same as in the Notice of Abandonment), and\n announcing the Registrar\'s intent to deregister that\n player after one month has passed.\n\n (d) If the Notice of Abandonment remains valid a month after the\n publication of the Notice of Intent to Deregister, then the\n Registrar shall, as soon as possible, publish in all\n designated Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail\n address of the player, a Notice of Deregistration,\n identifying the player being deregistered (as in the Notice\n of Abandonment). The only player so far to have returned to\n the game after becoming a zombie is Oerjan. The Notice is\n valid if and only if it is published by the Registrar,\n following the procedures described in this Rule.\n\n (e) Upon publication of a valid Notice of Deregistration, the\n following events occur in order:\n\n (1) if the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration\n is the Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker;\n\n (2) the player identified in the Notice of Deregistration is\n deregistered;\n\n (3) the Silent Treatment for that player concludes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4511 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405522,'rcs','00000001.00000175',1664,'Amended(29) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Rebellion','Rebellion',1119614893,'Rule 1664/29 (Power=2)\nRebellion\n\n A Call for Revolt is a notice submitted by a player (the\n Agitator) which alleges, roughly, that the current government is\n corrupt, oppressive and self-serving, that rather than watching\n over the people it is watching the people, that action must be\n taken, and furthermore asserts that we do not need a key,\n because we can break in. The Call is valid only if:\n\n (a) the Agitator was rebellious when e submitted the Call;\n\n (b) no other Call has been made during the same week; and\n\n (c) no Revolt has been successful for the previous thirty days.\n\n As soon as possible after a valid Call for Revolt has been\n submitted, the Registrar shall perform the following events in\n order:\n\n (a) select a random integer from 1 to the number of players\n (plus 1 if a player bears Miscreant);\n\n (b) if the selected number is less than or equal to the number\n of rebellious players (plus 1 if a rebellious player bears\n Miscreant), then:\n\n (1) announce that the Revolt succeeds;\n\n (2) expunge the blots of each rebellious player;\n\n (3) grant the ephemeral patent title Rebel Hero to each\n rebellious player;\n\n (4) set the initiative of each abiding player to Goethe, and\n return all stock cards held by abiding players to the\n Deck;\n\n (5) retire each abiding electee from office; and\n\n (6) flip each rebellious player\'s orthodoxy to abiding;\n\n otherwise:\n\n (1) announce that the Call for Revolt has failed;\n\n (2) assess each rebellious player 2 blots; and\n\n (3) assess the Agitator an additional 2 blots.\n\n The effects of a Call for Revolt shall be based on the orthodoxy\n of players at the time the Call was submitted.\n\n The Registrar shall notify the Herald of all blots gained or\n expunged as a result of this rule, and is empowered to perform\n the actions this rule would require em to perform.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2717, Oct 23 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2797 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3685 (Steve), Feb. 12 1998, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3713 (Blob), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3794 (Kolja A.), Oct. 19 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3936 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3951 (Elysion), Dec. 8 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4075b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4091 (Elysion), Dec. 18 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4098 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4128 (Murphy), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4516 (Murphy), 18 July 2003\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4554 (Elysion), 27 February 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(25) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(26) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(27) by Proposal 4686 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(28) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(29) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405523,'rcs','00000001.00000175',1975,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','The Associate Director of Personnel','The Associate Director of Personnel',1119614893,'Rule 1975/7 (Power=1)\nThe Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its\n holder is recordkeepor for offices and the Speaker and is\n responsible for holding elections for offices.\n\n The ADoP\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) a list of all offices;\n\n (b) for each office, the electee to the office and the date on\n which e most recently became electee to that office;\n\n (c) for each office for which the holder of the office is not\n the electee, the current holder of the office, and the date\n on which e most recently became holder of that office;\n\n (d) for each office, the date on which the term of service for\n that office ends, or an indication that the office is held\n in perpetuity;\n\n (e) the identity of the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4267 (root), 22 March 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405524,'rcs','00000001.00000175',1963,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Eligible Shareholders','Eligible Shareholders',1119614893,'Rule 1963/11 (Power=2)\nEligible Shareholders\n\n A player is an eligible shareholder unless is not active, has\n three or more blots, or is the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4568 (Maud), 27 April 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405525,'rcs','00000001.00000175',2085,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4797 (Maud), 6 June 2005','Mute Exemption','Mute Exemption',1119614893,'Rule 2085/2 (Power=1)\nMute Exemption\n\n A Legislator who is Mute may, with two support, submit a body of\n text with Mute Exemption. This text becomes a Proposal if it\n meets all rule requirements for a Proposal other than the\n Proposer not being Mute.\n\n As soon as possible after a Proposal with Mute Exemption passes,\n the Assessor shall expunge a number of Blots from the Proposer\n equal to the Adoption Index of the Proposal. The Proposer shall\n receive no Boons that may have been awarded by other rules for\n the passing of the Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4649 (Quazie), 22 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4704 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4797 (Maud), 6 June 2005'),(405526,'rcs','00000001.00000175',2095,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4787 (Sherlock), 6 June 2005','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties',1119614893,'Rule 2095/2 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\'s Boon Duties\n\n * If a Proposal passes, and that Proposal was submitted by a\n Player within that Player\'s Grace Period, then the Assessor\n shall award the Proposor the Boon of Prodigy, unless the\n Proposor has already received five or more such awards.\n\n * If a Democratic Proposal passes, and no Votes were cast\n AGAINST it, then the Assessor shall award the Proposor the\n Boon of Zeitgeist.\n\n * If a proposal submitted on Guy Fawkes Day is adopted then the\n Assessor shall award the proposer the boon of a penny.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4787 (Sherlock), 6 June 2005'),(405527,'rcs','00000001.00000175',2111,'Created by Proposal 4795 (Sherlock), 6 June 2005','Hard Ruleset Limits','Hard Ruleset Limits',1119614893,'Rule 2111/0 (Power=1)\nHard Ruleset Limits\n\n If there are 300 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted that\n would increase the total number of Rules, the Proposer commits\n the Class 2 Infraction of Improper Rules Fattening, reportable\n by anyone.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4795 (Sherlock), 6 June 2005'),(405528,'rcs','00000001.00000175',698,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1119614893,'Rule 698/12 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible. A player who is inactive, unready, or silent is\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all ready, active, non-barred, non-silent players become\n eligible to judge that CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n ready, active, barred, non-silent players, other than\n the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active, non-silent players, other than the caller\n emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly\n annoying CFJ;\n\n (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405529,'rcs','00000001.00000175',2091,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4796 (Maud), 6 June 2005','The Office of Secretary of the University','The Office of Secretary of the University',1119614893,'Rule 2091/1 (Power=1)\nThe Office of Secretary of the University\n\n The Secretary of the University (SotU) is an office; its holder\n is recordkeepor for the University.\n\n The SotU\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) A list of all active Research Grants;\n\n (b) A list of all active Book club selections;\n\n (c) Each player\'s Education.\n\n (d) A list of who has checked out cards from the library.\n\n (e) The running history of all of the preceding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4796 (Maud), 6 June 2005'),(405530,'rcs','00000001.00000175',2017,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Blots','Blots',1119614893,'Rule 2017/1 (Power=1)\nBlots\n\n The stain of an entity is an index measuring how unclean that\n entity is. An entity is immaculate, or squeaky clean, if its\n stain is zero.\n\n If an entity gains, is assessed, or is penalised a given number\n of Blots, then as soon as possible after the Herald is informed,\n either by emself or by others, of the change, e shall record an\n increase in that entity\'s stain of that amount (or half that\n amount if the entity is an unready player at the time of the\n change).\n\n If some number of an entity\'s Blots are expunged, then as soon\n as possible after the Herald is informed of the change, e shall\n record a decrease of that amount in the entity\'s stain. If this\n would result in a negative stain, then it instead results in a\n stain of zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405531,'rcs','00000001.00000175',1714,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Lawlessness','Lawlessness',1119614893,'Rule 1714/9 (Power=1)\nLawlessness\n\n A player is lawless while e has more than 20 blots.\n\n A notice of lawlessness is an allegation by one player (the\n Inquisitor) that a specified player (the Scofflaw) is lawless.\n As soon as possible after the publication of such a notice, the\n Herald shall publicly confirm or deny the allegation.\n\n If the Herald confirms the allegation, then the following events\n occur in order:\n\n (a) if the Scofflaw is the Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker;\n\n (b) the Scofflaw is removed from any offices e holds; and\n\n (c) the Scofflaw is deregistered.\n\n If the Herald denies the allegation, then the Inquisitor should\n be punished. You know what to do.\n\n If a player is deregistered according to the provisions of this\n rule, e may not register again until a month has passed from eir\n deregistration.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any Rule that would prohibit a\n lawless player from being deregistered.\n\n[CFJ 1059: Rule 1714 should be interpreted such that an allegation of\n Lawlessness sent to the PF must contain an explicit declaration that\n a particular Player is Lawless.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3577 (Zefram), Nov. 6 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4136 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405532,'rcs','00000001.00000175',1647,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','The Asenion Solution','The Asenion Solution',1119614893,'Rule 1647/13 (Power=1)\nThe Asenion Solution\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that\n e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a\n pope, so please treat em right good forever.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2681, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3887 (Blob), Jul. 30 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4246 (Steve), 19 February 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4429 (The Goddess Eris), 16 January 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4594 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405533,'rcs','00000001.00000175',1658,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','The Speaker we do Taint','The Speaker we do Taint',1119614893,'Rule 1658/5 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker we do Taint\n\n The person holding the position of Speaker is untained as long\n as e holds that position lawfully.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2699, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405534,'rcs','00000001.00000175',681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Conditions for Conclavity','Conditions for Conclavity',1119614893,'Rule 681/12 (Power=1)\nConditions for Conclavity\n\n A conclave must be convened whenever any of the following events\n occur:\n\n (a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership;\n\n (b) the Speaker becomes inactive;\n\n (c) the Herald confirms an allegation that the Speaker is\n lawless;\n\n (d) a valid notice of deregistration naming the Speaker is\n published;\n\n (e) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the\n Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in\n which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified\n cardinals for the conclave;\n\n (f) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which\n case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals for\n the conclave;\n\n (g) no pope has become Speaker in the past six months;\n\n (h) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker; or\n\n (i) a conclave has concluded with an inconclusive result.\n\n So there\'s always hope\n that you can be pope.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 681 (KoJen), ca. Oct. 29 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1423, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1695, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405535,'rcs','00000001.00000175',786,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Default Procedure for Conclaves','Default Procedure for Conclaves',1119614893,'Rule 786/14 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Conclaves\n\n When the rules require that a conclave be convened, and no\n competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as\n possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall\n announce that e convenes a conclave, specifying a collection of\n cardinals and indicating that those cardinals are to convene a\n conclave. Provided that:\n\n (a) the rules require that the conclave be convened;\n\n (b) no competing conclave is currently convened; and\n\n (c) the collection consists of qualified cardinals,\n\n then as of such an announcement, a conclave consisting of the\n qualified cardinals is convened. A cardinal is qualified for a\n conclave unless the rules specify otherwise.\n\n The first seven days following the convening of a conclave\n constitute the posturing period. During the posturing period, a\n qualified cardinal may announce eir intent to become a pope.\n Any other player may publicly support or revoke support for a\n cardinal\'s claim until the posturing period ends.\n\n As soon as possible after the posturing period ends, the ADoP\n shall perform the following actions in order:\n\n (a) E shall determine the cardinal club, which is the collection\n of qualified cardinals with positive support from the\n populace and at least as much unwithdrawn support as any\n other qualified cardinal.\n\n (b) If the cardinal club has no members, e shall announce this\n fact, and announce the conclave was inconclusive.\n\n (c) If the cardinal club has at least one member, e shall select\n one of its members to be pope, then publish the list of\n members of the cardinal club, indicating which member is to\n become a pope. That member becomes a pope as of this\n announcement.\n\n The ADoP\'s announcement in (b) or (c) concludes the conclave.\n If the conclave was inconclusive, eir announcement of this fact\n shall constitute a valid call to conclave. If the conclave has\n not concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened,\n any player may announce that it is inconclusive; upon such an\n announcement, the conclave shall conclude with an inconclusive\n result, and a conclave must be convened.\n\n If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its\n holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the\n first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir\n announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s\n announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform\n the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that\n conclave.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 786 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1426, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1539, Apr. 4 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2500, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2828 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4049 (Elysion), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405536,'rcs','00000001.00000175',402,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005','Church and State','Church and State',1119614893,'Rule 402/12 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current\n Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.\n\n While there is a pope, no other player may become a pope.\n Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e ceases being a pope.\n\n A notice of papal succession declares that a specified player is\n a pope. The notice is valid only if it is published by the\n Associate Director of Personnel and the specified player is\n indeed a pope.\n\n Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession, the\n current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the new\n Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005'),(405537,'rcs','00000001.00000176',869,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005','How to Join Agora','How to Join Agora',1119615624,'Rule 869/16 (Power=1)\nHow to Join Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering may become a registered player by\n sending a message to a public forum which sets forth eir intent\n to register.\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005'),(405538,'rcs','00000001.00000176',1677,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005','Honoring the New','Honoring the New',1119615624,'Rule 1677/13 (Power=1)\nHonoring the New\n\n Readiness is a stuck player switch with values unready and\n ready. A player may flip eir readiness to ready.\n\n Whenever a player registers who has not been registered within\n the previous year, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace\n Period beginning immediately and lasting for sixty days, not\n including Holidays. At the end of eir Grace Period, e becomes\n ready.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall announce eir arrival. This\n announcement shall have the effect of setting that player\'s\n kudos to twice the Tabla Rasa.\n\n If a player joins the game, but is neither subject to a Grace\n Period nor has been a player at any time since the last Turning\n of a New Parchment, then the Herald shall set eir kudos to half\n the Tabla Rasa (rounded up).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005'),(405539,'rcs','00000001.00000176',1963,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4804 (Maud), 15 June 2005','Eligible Shareholders','Eligible Shareholders',1119615624,'Rule 1963/12 (Power=2)\nEligible Shareholders\n\n A player is an eligible shareholder unless e is not active, has\n three or more blots, or is the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4262 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4458 (Steve), 3 March 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4534 (OscarMeyr), 8 November 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4568 (Maud), 27 April 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4804 (Maud), 15 June 2005'),(405540,'rcs','00000001.00000176',2076,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4799 (root), 15 June 2005','Card cards','Card cards',1119615624,'Rule 2076/5 (Power=1)\nCard cards\n\n The following classes of cards are defined:\n\n Caption: Your Turn\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A Player you name must play or discard a card in the\n next 72 hours, or commit the Class-1 Infraction of\n Delay of Game, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Discard Picking\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[4]\n Exploit: If a copy of a card was played or discarded in the\n past 72 hours, you may name it, and a copy of that\n card, if one is still in the discard pile, is\n automatically transferred from the discard pile to\n your hand.\n\n Caption: Enforced Charity\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[3]\n Exploit: A Player you name must transfer a card of eir choice\n to you in the next 72 hours, or commit the Class-2\n Infraction of Greed, reportable by you.\n\n Caption: Drop your Weapon\n Elements: Budgeted\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically Discarded, provided that\n Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Presto!\n Elements: Budgeted, Delayed[7]\n Exploit: A card of your choice, from the Gambler of your\n choice, is automatically transferred to your hand,\n provided that Gambler has a copy of that card.\n\n Caption: Reshuffle\n Quota: 3\n Elements: Asleep[15]\n Exploit: You may perform a Reshuffle.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4620 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4678 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4714 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4744 (Quazie, root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4799 (root), 15 June 2005'),(405541,'rcs','00000001.00000176',1658,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4804 (Maud), 15 June 2005','The Speaker we do Taint','The Speaker we do Taint',1119615624,'Rule 1658/6 (Power=1)\nThe Speaker we do Taint\n\n The person holding the position of Speaker is untainted as long\n as e holds that position lawfully.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2699, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4804 (Maud), 15 June 2005'),(405542,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2105,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1119617678,'Rule 2105/0 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER REEF\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | |\n / | | \\\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\\n / | | | <- BRISBANE\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ |\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE ->\n \\ __/ \\_ / /\n PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | /\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005'),(405543,'rcs','00000001.00000177',1932,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1119617678,'Rule 1932/10 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n All cards with the Element \"Shares [X]\" are cumulatively known\n as the Stock Cards.\n\n An entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares\n possessed. The Number of Shares is the sum of the Share Holdings\n of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an Eligible Shareholder with positive Share\n Holdings. A Plebeian is a Player who is not a Shareholder. The\n Corporation is the set of all Shareholders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4668 (Quazie, Murphy), 9 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405544,'rcs','00000001.00000177',408,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4808 (Murphy), 15 June 2005','Late Judgement','Late Judgement',1119617678,'Rule 408/17 (Power=1)\nLate Judgement\n\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the\n Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by\n the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement.\n\n Upon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet\n Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by\n announcement as soon as possible.\n\n A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of\n Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an\n unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2\n plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be\n reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes\n ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly\n requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 215, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2587, May 1 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Aug. 14 1997, susbstantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Rule 408, Aug. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposl 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4670 (OscarMeyr), 9 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4808 (Murphy), 15 June 2005'),(405545,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2068,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','The Deckmastor','The Deckmastor',1119617678,'Rule 2068/4 (Power=1)\nThe Deckmastor\n\n The Deckmastor is an office whose responsibilities include\n shuffling, dealing, and other random actions concerning cards,\n and who acts as the recordkeepor for Cards. The Deckmastor\'s\n Weekly Report shall contain a record of all Cards in existence,\n recent card actions, and what entity possesses each Card.\n\n The Deck and the Discard Pile are Gamblers. The Deckmastor\n shall be the sole Executor of both entities, but may take no\n action on behalf of them except as explicitly permitted by the\n Rules. The Deck and Discard Pile may not transfer cards to any\n other entity except as explicitly required by the Rules.\n\n Only the Deckmastor may create or destroy Cards, and e only may\n do so when the rules require it. The Deckmastor creates or\n destroys a card by announcement, specifying as appropriate the\n entity who now possesses it or previously possessed it.\n\n If at any time fewer Copies of a defined Class of Cards exist\n than its Quota, then the Deckmastor shall create a Copy of that\n Card in the possession of The Deck, unless otherwise specified.\n If at any time more Copies of a Class of Cards exist than its\n Quota, then the Deckmastor shall destroy a Copy of that Card in\n the possession of The Deck, unless no such Copies exist, in\n which case the Deckmastor shall destroy a random Copy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405546,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2112,'Created by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Deckmastor\'s Budget','Deckmastor\'s Budget',1119617678,'Rule 2112/0 (Power=1)\nDeckmastor\'s Budget\n\n The Deckmastor shall have a budget containing values for each of\n the following:\n\n (a) the Maximum Hand Size and the Minimum Hand Size, each of\n which is a positive integer between 2 and 10, with the\n Minimum being less than the Maximum. In the absence of a\n budget, the Maximum Hand Size shall be 5 and the Minimum\n Hand Size shall be 2.\n\n (b) the Maximum Deck Size, which shall be no less than the\n number of players in the game times the maximum hand size.\n\n (c) the Maximum Deck Diversity, which shall be no less than\n twice the number of players in the game.\n\n If the Budget does not specify values for (a-c) above, or\n specifies a value violating these limits, the value shall be the\n smallest value that does not violate these limits.\n\n The Deckmastor\'s Budget shall also contain a Quota, which is a\n non-negative integer, for each defined class of Card. If the\n quota for a particular class of card is not specified in the\n Budget, that card shall have a quota of 0.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405547,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2113,'Created by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Card Constraints','Card Constraints',1119617678,'Rule 2113/0 (Power=1)\nCard Constraints\n\n The following maxima exist for card frequencies:\n (a) For a card with a unique frequency, one.\n (b) For card with a rare frequency, the number of active\n players.\n\n If the current quota for a card class exceeds the maximum for\n its defined frequency, then any Player may, with 2 support,\n amend the Deckmastor\'s budget to set the card\'s quota to its\n maximum. When a card\'s frequency is defined or changed, and the\n mechanism changing it does not specify a new quota, its quota is\n set to the maximum for that frequency.\n\n If at any time the sum of all quotas for all cards is greater\n than the Maximum Deck Size, the Deckmastor may, with 2 support,\n amend the budget by reducing quotas so that the resulting sum is\n equal to this maximum.\n\n If at any time the number of card classes with positive quotas\n is greater than the Maximum Deck Diversity, the Deckmastor may,\n with 2 support, amend the budget by setting quotas to 0 so that\n the resulting number of card classes with positive quotas is\n equal to this maximum.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405548,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2114,'Created by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1119617678,'Rule 2114/0 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n A Cardbook is a document, maintained by the Deckmastor, that is\n specifically defined in the Rules as being a Cardbook. The\n Deckmastor must publish each cardbook as soon as possible after\n its contents change, and at least once a month. The contents of\n a cardbook may only be changed as explicitly permitted by the\n Rules.\n\n The Deckmastor may change non-substantial properties of any\n Cardbook, specifically layout, whitespace, and the order of\n definitions, as e sees fit.\n\n A class of card is considered defined if and only if a valid\n definition for that card class exists in a cardbook. A valid\n card definition defines a Class of Card by specifying a Caption,\n a Frequency, zero or more Elements, and zero or more Exploits.\n\n (a) The Caption shall be the name of a particular Class of\n Cards. No two Classes of Cards shall have the same Caption.\n\n (b) The Frequency, which may have one of the following values:\n Common, Rare, Unique. If any other value is specified, the\n frequency shall be considered to be Unique.\n\n (c) A cardbook may define Elements for Cards. Each Element shall\n have a name and a description. Any Card possessing the\n Element of that name shall behave according to the\n description associated with that Element. An Element not\n defined in a cardbook has no effect.\n\n (d) An Exploit is an action that the Holder of that Card (and\n only the Holder of that Card) may take if and only if e\n clearly indicates the card whose Exploit e is performing and\n e meets the requirements and/or pays the costs outlined in\n that Exploit. Any reference to \"you,\" \"your\" or a similar\n pronoun in the text of an Exploit refers to the Holder of\n that Card. Taking an action described in an Exploit is known\n as Playing the Card. Unless a Rule or card definition says\n otherwise, a Card is automatically transferred to the\n Discard Pile immediately after being Played.\n\n All Cards of the same Class shall be identical and fungible.\n Each individual instance of a Card shall be considered to be a\n Copy of that Class of Card.\n\n If there are conflicts between a card or element definition in a\n cardbook and the Rules, then the conflict shall be resolved as\n if the definition were contained in the text of the Rule that\n defines the particular cardbook.\n\n This Rule has precedence over any Rule describing the definition\n or interpretation of card classes and card elements.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405549,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2115,'Created by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Cards of Power','Cards of Power',1119617678,'Rule 2115/0 (Power=2)\nCards of Power\n\n There is a cardbook called the Twopower Cardbook, which may only\n be changed by a Proposal with a power of 2 or greater.\n\n If the definitions contained within the Twopower Cardbook would\n set, under certain conditions, the power of a copy of a card\n defined in it, then this Rule is considered to be the entity\n that sets the power of that card copy.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405550,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2116,'Created by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Onepower Cardbook','Onepower Cardbook',1119617678,'Rule 2116/0 (Power=1)\nOnepower Cardbook\n\n There is a cardbook called the Onepower Cardbook, which may only\n be changed by Proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405551,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2069,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005','Card Actions','Card Actions',1119617678,'Rule 2069/6 (Power=1)\nCard Actions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n If a Gambler transfers a card to the Deck, it is instead\n transferred to the discard pile, unless the transfer is made\n as part of the Deckmastor\'s required duties. Discarding a\n Card is synonymous with transfering said Card to the Discard\n Pile.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made. Whenever a player makes a true announcement that the\n number of pending draws for all gamblers is greater than the\n number of cards in the Deck, or that there are no cards in\n the Deck, then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of the\n cards in the Discard Pile to the Deck before dealing any\n cards. This transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is\n performed as a single action.\n\n A Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand\n Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is\n Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this\n action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times\n during the current month e has previously drawn a card in\n this manner.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005'),(405552,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2096,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Ephemeral Time Limits','Ephemeral Time Limits',1119617678,'Rule 2096/2 (Power=1)\nEphemeral Time Limits\n\n If an ephemeral patent title is earned between one week before\n the end of the previous quarter and one week before the end of\n the current quarter, then it must be awarded before the turning\n of a new parchment.\n\n The announcement that a proposal does not earn the proposer the\n boon of tapecutter must also follow these time restrictions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405553,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2104,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Contreras Card Labs','Contreras Card Labs',1119617678,'Rule 2104/1 (Power=1)\nContreras Card Labs\n\n The University encourages Card experimentation.\n\n There is a cardbook called the Blueprints Cardbook, which may be\n changed by Proposal, or as specified in this Rule.\n\n Any Player may, with support, add a Blueprint to the Blueprints\n cardbook. A Blueprint must be a valid card definition.\n\n Any card added in this manner shall have a quota of 0.\n\n Any Player may, with support, remove a Blueprint with a quota of\n 0 from the Blueprints cardbook.\n\n If a Blueprint has been in the Blueprints Cardbook for over four\n days, any Player may change the quota of that Blueprint from 0\n to 1 (if the card is unique) or from 0 to a number not greater\n than the number of active Players (if the card is rare or\n common), without three Objections.\n\n If the quota of a card is changed in this manner, the Deckmastor\n shall create one of the copies of that card in The Library\n rather than in the Deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405554,'rcs','00000001.00000177',2097,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005','Card-Carrying Contracts','Card-Carrying Contracts',1119617678,'Rule 2097/1 (Power=1)\nCard-Carrying Contracts\n\n A Contract may be made into a Card-Carrying Contract by its\n Notary acting with two support and without two objections. A\n player may only be Notary of one Card-Carrying Contract at a\n time.\n\n A Card-Carrying Contract is a gambler, and may perform the\n following actions only as explicitly permitted by its\n regulations:\n\n 1. As long as the Contract has at least three Members and its\n hand size is less than the maximum hand size, it may draw a\n number of cards each month equal to its number of Members at\n the beginning of the month divided by two and rounded up.\n\n 2. Transfer or discard cards.\n\n A Card-Carrying Contract may not play cards.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4700 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005'),(405555,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1793,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','Orders','Orders',1119936864,'Rule 1793/1 (Power=1)\nOrders\n\n An Order is a command, executed by a player and directed to some\n entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or\n to refrain from performing one or more actions.\n\n An Order may be directed to the holder of an official position\n in eir capacity in that official position, and if the position\n changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide\n by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that\n position.\n\n An Order may also be directed at a prior order so as to affect\n the prior order\'s operation, as the Rules permit.\n\n All Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for\n their class are presumed valid and enforceable until proven\n otherwise by CFJ. No Order may act to prevent or hinder its own\n appeal in any way. Knowingly and willfully executing invalid\n Orders constitutes the Class 10 Crime of Abuse of Authority.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405556,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1794,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',1119936864,'Rule 1794/7 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an\n Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of\n the first class that matches.\n\n (a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the\n effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n\n (b) A Sentencing Order is an Order executed to impose the\n penalty for a Crime.\n\n (c) A Ticketing Order is an Order executed to impose the\n penalty for an Infraction.\n\n (d) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of\n Appeals.\n\n (e) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the\n course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.\n\n (f) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any\n person and directed at any entity. A timing order is\n valid if and only if it orders the entity to perform, as\n soon as possible, a duty specifically required of em by\n the Rules that does not otherwise have a specified timing\n requirement, or for which the otherwise specified timing\n requirement will have been exceeded as soon as possible\n after the Order is executed.\n\n No other types of Orders are valid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405557,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1795,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','Order Timing','Order Timing',1119936864,'Rule 1795/4 (Power=1)\nOrder Timing\n\n An Order may specify the time limit for the performance of an\n ordered action. If a time limit is less than 72 hours after the\n Order takes effect, the time limit shall be 72 hours. If no\n time limit is specified, time limit shall be as soon as possible\n after the Order takes effect.\n\n If an Order which commands the performance of an action is\n directed to an Office or other position of authority, and the\n holder of that position of authority changes after the Order\n takes effect, but before the Order is satisfied, and the time\n limit is before, or less than 72 hours after, the current holder\n of the position came to hold that position, then the current\n holder shall have as soon as possible to satisfy that order.\n\n Other Rules may establish other times by which orders must be\n performed. The noncompliance of an order with this Rule does\n not deprive that order of all effect, but instead modifies the\n timing requirements of the order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405558,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1799,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','Stay and Vacation of Orders','Stay and Vacation of Orders',1119936864,'Rule 1799/3 (Power=1)\nStay and Vacation of Orders\n\n The effect of staying an Order is to temporarily prevent the\n stayed Order from having any effect.\n\n A stay may be ordered for a fixed time, in which case the stay\n expires at the time specified; or for an indefinite time, in\n which case the stay will not expire. If no specification is\n made in the Order to Stay, the stay shall be indefinite.\n\n When the stay expires or is vacated, the previously stayed order\n again has effect as if it had been originally executed at the\n moment the stay ceases to be effective. However, if at the time\n the staying Order expires or otherwise ceases to have effect,\n the stayed Order has been vacated or is subject to another\n staying Order, it does not regain effect.\n\n The effect of vacating an Order is to permanently deny the\n vacated Order from having any effect. Vacating an Order to\n Vacate reinstates the ability of the vacated Order to have\n effect, as of the moment the Order to Vacate is itself vacated.\n\n Any Order may always be stayed or vacated by the Player (or, in\n the case of Appellate Orders, Board of Appeal) who executed it.\n Certain classes of Orders may be stayed or vacated in other\n circumstances as well, but only as the Rules allow.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405559,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1810,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','Satisfying Orders','Satisfying Orders',1119936864,'Rule 1810/4 (Power=1)\nSatisfying Orders\n\n An Order requiring an entity to perform an action is satisfied\n when that entity performs that action. Other Rules may define\n other ways for Orders to be satisfied. Except when otherwise\n specified, a single action can result in the satisfaction of at\n most one Order. If an action would satisfy more than one Order,\n and no other specification is made, the Action satisfies the\n oldest Order which it would satisfy.\n\n If an Order requires an entity to perform an action prior to a\n specified time, and the Order is not satisfied prior to that\n time specified in the Order commits the Class 4 Crime of\n Contempt by Inaction.\n\n Any entity who, while required by an Order to refrain from\n performing an action, performs the proscribed action while the\n Order is in effect commits the Class 4 Crime of Contempt by\n Action.\n\n This Rule shall have no application with respect to any Order\n which has been adjudicated to be invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3954 (Elysion), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405560,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1803,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','Judicial and Sentencing Orders','Judicial and Sentencing Orders',1119936864,'Rule 1803/2 (Power=1)\nJudicial and Sentencing Orders\n\n Judicial Orders and Sentencing Orders are executed by being sent\n to the Clerk of the Courts, but do not take effect until their\n publication by the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts\n shall publish each Judicial Order and Sentencing Order as soon\n as possible after receiving it from the Judge who executed it.\n\n Any Player may formally request a Judge issue any Judicial Order\n by filing a motion requesting that Order. If granted, the Judge\n shall issue the Order requested.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405561,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1509,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','Orders to Compel','Orders to Compel',1119936864,'Rule 1509/4 (Power=1)\nOrders to Compel\n\n Upon a judicial finding that a Player has failed to perform a\n duty required of em by the Rules, the Judge so finding shall\n execute an Order, requiring that Player to perform that duty as\n soon as possible. Such an Order is known as an Order to Compel.\n\n If the duty in question arises because the Player in question\n holds a specific Office or other position of official\n responsibility, the Order shall be directed to that Office or\n position. If the Player holding that Office fails to perform\n the duty in question as ordered, the Judge shall Order that that\n Player be removed from Office or position.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1690, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1738, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405562,'rcs','00000001.00000179',1830,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005','No Compulsion of Judges','No Compulsion of Judges',1119936864,'Rule 1830/2 (Power=1)\nNo Compulsion of Judges\n\n Any Order to Compel directed to a Judge, or requiring the\n performance of a duty required of a Player because that Player\n is a Judge, is invalid, unless that Order is a valid Appellate\n Order.\n\n Any CFJ alleging that a Judgement is incorrect, or that a Judge\n has failed to perform a judicial duty, lacks standing. Such a\n claim should instead be pursued via Appeal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405563,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1688,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Power','Power',1119952701,'Rule 1688/2 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a natural number, which is zero unless\n otherwise defined or modified according to procedures defined by\n the rules. An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405564,'rcs','00000001.00000180',790,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Filling Vacant Offices','Filling Vacant Offices',1119952701,'Rule 790/14 (Power=1)\nFilling Vacant Offices\n\n An election to fill an office must be held whenever:\n\n (a) the office ceases to have an electee;\n\n (b) the office is created without installing an electee; or\n\n (c) an election to fill that office fails, and no election for\n that office is in progress.\n\n As long as an election to fill an office is in progress, no\n other election to fill that office may be initiated. An\n election is in progress from the time it is initiated until it\n is resolved.\n\n If a player required to initiate an election fails to do so as\n soon as possible, then any player may announce that the election\n has failed. Provided that this assertion is indeed correct,\n then upon this announcement the election fails.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 790, ca. Dec. 20 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2454, Feb. 6 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 28 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2639, Jul. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405565,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1486,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000','Procedure for an Orderly Witch Hunt','Procedure for an Orderly Witch Hunt',1119952701,'Rule 1486/6 (Power=1)\nProcedure for an Orderly Witch Hunt\n\n An active player (the Witch Hunter) may hold a referendum to\n remove an officer from office. For this referendum:\n\n (a) The set of eligible voters is the set of active players\n besides the Witch Hunter and the named officer.\n\n (b) The adoption index is 2.\n\n (c) \"BURN THE WITCH\" is a synonym for \"FOR\".\n\n (d) \"LET THE WITCH LIVE\" is a synonym for \"AGAINST\".\n\n (e) \"OF COURSE THE WITCH IS GUILTY, BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT OTHER\n PEOPLE THINK\" is a synonym for \"PRESENT\".\n\n If the referendum is adopted, it shall have the effect of\n removing the named player from the named office if e is electee\n to that office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1638, Jul. 25 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2577, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2668, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000'),(405566,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1932,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1119952701,'Rule 1932/11 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n All cards with the Element \"Shares [X]\" are cumulatively known\n as the Stock Cards.\n\n An entity\'s Share Holdings is equal to the number of Shares\n possessed by that entity. The Number of Shares is the sum of the\n Share Holdings of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an entity with positive Share Holdings. A\n Plebeian is a player who is not an eligible Shareholder. The\n Corporation is the set of all eligible Shareholders.\n\n To be valid, a ballot on an ordinary proposal must be submitted\n by an eligible Shareholder.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4668 (Quazie, Murphy), 9 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405567,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1483,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Definition of Proposals','Definition of Proposals',1119952701,'Rule 1483/11 (Power=1)\nDefinition of Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A legislator submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as\n possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n While a proposal is in the Proposal Pool, its proposer may\n modify its adoption index by announcement, specifying the\n proposal and its new adoption index. The default adoption index\n of a proposal is one.\n\n All players are legislators.\n\n[CFJ 762: Anything contained in a Proposal is part of that Proposal,\n unless the Rules or Game Custom specifically says otherwise.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1619, Jul. 17 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3799 (Blob), Oct. 29 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4658 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405568,'rcs','00000001.00000180',107,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1119952701,'Rule 107/2 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the election for\n Scorekeepor\" or \"the adoption of proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405569,'rcs','00000001.00000180',594,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Enactment of Rules','Enactment of Rules',1119952701,'Rule 594/9 (Power=3)\nEnactment of Rules\n\n A proposal can, as part of its effect, enact a rule, specifying\n its content and optionally specifying its power and title. If\n the proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have\n power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then\n the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the\n power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal.\n If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any\n title e sees fit.\n\n When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number,\n which must be greater than any number previously assigned, and\n shall assign it a revision number of zero.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted.\n\n[CFJ 778: It is legal for a Proposal to contain zero Rule Changes.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 594 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1323, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar 26 1997, substantial\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4328 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4349 (root), 20 July 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405570,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2119,'Repeal of Rules','Repeal of Rules','Repeal of Rules',1119952701,'Rule 2119/0 (Power=3)\nRepeal of Rules\n\n A proposal can, as part of its effect, repeal a rule with power\n no greater than its own. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to\n be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n repealed.'),(405571,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2045,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Adoption Indices','Adoption Indices',1119952701,'Rule 2045/1 (Power=3)\nAdoption Indices\n\n When a decision on whether to adopt a proposal or referendum is\n initiated, it shall be assigned an adoption index, which shall\n be one unless otherwise specified. Once the voting period for a\n decision has begun, the adoption index of that decision can only\n be changed by the Speaker\'s veto.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405572,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1952,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',1119952701,'Rule 1952/5 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n The Promotor shall have a budget containing the per-player\n proposal limit, which shall be a positive integer defaulting to\n four.\n\n Depth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and\n distributable.\n\n A player may flip the depth of one of eir proposals in the\n Proposal Pool to distributable by announcement as long as the\n number of eir distributable proposals in the Pool is less than\n the per-player proposal limit.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4702 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405573,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1770,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Distributing Proposals','Distributing Proposals',1119952701,'Rule 1770/17 (Power=1)\nDistributing Proposals\n\n (a) The Promotor is permitted to distribute a distributable\n proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time.\n\n (b) During each week, the Promotor must distribute each proposal\n which was distributable at the beginning of the week and\n which remains distributable.\n\n (c) If there were no proposals in the Proposal Pool at the\n beginning of a week, then the Promotor must announce this\n fact at some time during that week.\n\n (d) The Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it\n accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being\n distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed\n from the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal\n initiates the Agoran decision of whether to adopt the\n proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n (e) The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n proposal the identity of its proposer, the proposal\'s\n coauthors, if any, its chamber, and its adoption index.\n However, the failure of the Promotor to include any of these\n with a proposal does not deprive the distribution of the\n proposal of any legal effect.\n\n[In upholding the Judgement of CFJ 1089, the Board of Appeals held\n that in order for a Proposal to have been legally distributed, it is\n necessary (although perhaps not sufficient) that some text with\n demonstrably the same effects as the Proposal have been distributed.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3731 (Steve), Apr. 24 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3841 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3842 (Blob), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3867 (Blob), May 24 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3922 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3933 (harvel), Oct. 24 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4005 (Taral), May 8 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4034 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4072 (Steve), Sep. 20 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4355 (Steve), 7 August 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405574,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1774,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Discarding Proposals from the Pool','Discarding Proposals from the Pool',1119952701,'Rule 1774/4 (Power=1)\nDiscarding Proposals from the Pool\n\n If a proposal in the Proposal Pool has been undistributable and\n in the Pool for more than two weeks continuously, then the\n Promotor may remove that proposal from the Pool by announcement.\n\n The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3684 (Blob), Feb. 12 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3806 (Kolja A.), Nov. 30 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3943 (Wes), Nov. 20 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405575,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1449,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','The Assessor','The Assessor',1119952701,'Rule 1449/17 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and announcing the results of votes on proposals.\n\n The Assessor\'s weekly report shall include a list of the\n identity and voting limit for proposals in each chamber for each\n entity with nonzero voting power in at least one chamber.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jun. 18 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1776, Nov. 6 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), Feb. 26 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3779 (Blob), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4255 (Steve), 21 February 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405576,'rcs','00000001.00000180',106,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1119952701,'Rule 106/2 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405577,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2034,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1119952701,'Rule 2034/2 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change\n the validity of one or more of a voter\'s ballots on an Agoran\n decision whose voting period has begun but which has not yet\n been resolved shall be wholly without effect, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, no ballots on that\n decision may be validly submitted or retracted, and the outcome\n of the decision may not be changed in any way, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this rule shall be\n construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting\n the resolution of an Agoran decision.\n\n If the success of the resolution of an Agoran decision is not\n challenged within one week from the time the vote collector\n announces it, then the announced result is the true result of\n that decision, even if it would otherwise be in error.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405578,'rcs','00000001.00000180',693,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Prescribed Voting Period','Prescribed Voting Period',1119952701,'Rule 693/7 (Power=3)\nPrescribed Voting Period\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decisionmaking process takes place in the following three\n stages:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision: The decisionmaking process\n begins when a person authorized to initiate the decision\n announces the matter to be decided, including any additional\n information the rules require to be in that announcement.\n\n (b) Voting of the people: Immediately thereafter, the voting\n period for the decision begins. During the voting period,\n eligible voters may vote on the matter, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n (c) Resolution of the decision: After the voting period for the\n decision ends, any person authorized by the rules to resolve\n the decision may announce that the matter has been decided,\n specifying the option selected by Agora.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405579,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2117,'Created by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Replacing the Vote Collector','Replacing the Vote Collector',1119952701,'Rule 2117/0 (Power=3)\nReplacing the Vote Collector\n\n If the rules indicate that an office is to be responsible for\n collecting votes on a particular Agoran decision, then the\n holder of that office is the default vote collector for that\n decision.\n\n The vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is tardy if\n and only if the voting collector has continuously held that role\n for at least seven days following the end of the voting period\n and the decision has not yet been resolved. If a vote collector\n is tardy, then the first player to announce that e takes up the\n role of vote collector becomes the vote collector for that\n decision.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would allow the\n vote collector for an Agoran decision to be changed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405580,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1933,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1119952701,'Rule 1933/9 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Chamber is a stuck proposal switch with values democratic and\n ordinary.\n\n An ordinary proposal with adoption index of two or greater is\n stalled. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a proposal is\n undistributable while it is stalled. If a proposal is\n distributed that was stalled at the time of distribution, its\n chamber shall immediately and automatically be flipped to\n democratic.\n\n While a proposal is in the Proposal Pool, its proposer may flip\n its chamber by announcement. This rule takes precedence over\n any rule that would permit the chamber of a proposal to be\n changed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4570 (Elysion), 2 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4590 (Elysion), 4 July 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405581,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1950,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Voting Limits','Voting Limits',1119952701,'Rule 1950/12 (Power=3)\nVoting Limits\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter on a referendum or an\n election is always one and cannot be changed.\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter on a non-ordinary proposal\n is one.\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is\n the sum of:\n\n (a) one;\n\n (b) eir Share Holdings; and\n\n (c) the minimum of three and the number of Share cards in the\n Deck, if e is the Deckmastor.\n\n After the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the\n vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by\n an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that\n person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the\n voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all\n subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405582,'rcs','00000001.00000180',683,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1119952701,'Rule 683/12 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the\n voting period for the decision.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405583,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2019,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1119952701,'Rule 2019/3 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n During the voting period of a non-democratic proposal, the\n Speaker may veto it, with two support. When e does so, the\n adoption index of that proposal is increased by one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405584,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1764,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Modes of Nomination','Modes of Nomination',1119952701,'Rule 1764/15 (Power=1)\nModes of Nomination\n\n There are three modes of nomination for elections: selfless,\n selfish, and open. If the player who initiated the election\n does not specify the mode of nomination for an election, it is\n selfish.\n\n (1) In a selfless election, any nominator may nominate any\n prospective besides emself.\n\n (2) In a selfish election, any nominator who is a prospective\n may nominate emself.\n\n (3) In an open election, any nominator may nominate any\n prospective.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3658 (Steve), Jan. 8 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3757 (Steve), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Rule 1764, Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3780 (Steve), Aug. 12 1998\nAmended(4) by Rule 1764, Oct. 12 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3834 (Blob), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3952 (Blob), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405585,'rcs','00000001.00000180',879,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Quorum','Quorum',1119952701,'Rule 879/22 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n The quorum for an Agoran decision is one third the number of\n eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless\n there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the\n quorum level is the number of eligible voters).\n\nCFJ 1562 (Judged TRUE, 6 May 2005): \"A cancelled vote on a Proposal\n does not count towards quorum.\"\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405586,'rcs','00000001.00000180',208,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1119952701,'Rule 208/3 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is\n authorized to resolve that decision, and does so by publishing a\n valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved,\n indicating the option selected by Agora. To be valid, this\n notice must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It clearly identifies the options available.\n\n (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision shall have at most one vote collector at a\n time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message\n initiating the decision, and can only be changed as specified by\n other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 707: A Player may not change eir Vote after the end of the Voting\n Period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405587,'rcs','00000001.00000180',955,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1119952701,'Rule 955/9 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal or\n referendum, e shall determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n (d) If the decision is an election, then as long as quorum is\n achieved, the vote collector has the privilege to choose any\n option the strength of which meets or exceeds that of any\n other option to be the option selected by Agora.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405588,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1322,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Modification of Rules','Modification of Rules',1119952701,'Rule 1322/4 (Power=3)\nModification of Rules\n\n A proposal can generally, as part of its effect, modify the\n power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its\n own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power\n greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified\n by a proposal causes that modification to be void and without\n effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the\n quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for\n the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.\n\n When a rule is modified, the Rulekeepor shall generally record\n an increase by one in its revision number. If a single proposal\n modifies a regulation several times, the Rulekeepor shall only\n record a single increase of its revision number.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n modified.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1322, Nov. 21 1994\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 5 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nInfected, but not Amended, by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405589,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2095,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties','The Assessor\'s Boon Duties',1119952701,'Rule 2095/3 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\'s Boon Duties\n\n If a proposal is submitted and adopted during that player\'s\n Grace Period, then the Assessor shall award that player the boon\n of Prodigy.\n\n If a proposal is adopted, and nobody voted AGAINST it, then the\n Assessor shall award its proposer the boon of Zeitgeist.\n\n If a proposal submitted on Guy Fawkes Day is adopted, then the\n Assessor shall award its proposer the boon of A Penny.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4696 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4787 (Sherlock), 6 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405590,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2111,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4815 (Sherlock), 20 June 2005','Hard Ruleset Limits','Hard Ruleset Limits',1119952701,'Rule 2111/1 (Power=1)\nHard Ruleset Limits\n\n If there are 200 or more Rules, and a Proposal is adopted that\n would increase the total number of Rules, the Proposer commits\n the Class 2 Infraction of Improper Rules Fattening, reportable\n by anyone.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4795 (Sherlock), 6 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4812 (Sherlock), 20 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4813 (Sherlock), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4814 (Sherlock), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4815 (Sherlock), 20 June 2005'),(405591,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1434,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting','Default Procedure for Referendum Voting',1119952701,'Rule 1434/14 (Power=2)\nDefault Procedure for Referendum Voting\n\n Determining whether to adopt a referendum is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the eligible voters are the players.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the referendum is adopted, and unless other rules prevent\n it from taking effect, it takes effect. It does not otherwise\n take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would permit a referendum to take effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1456, Mar. 1 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2585, May 1 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2783 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3746 (Blob), May 15 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4258 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4629 (Murphy), 19 December 2004\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405592,'rcs','00000001.00000180',2118,'Created by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Nominations for Election','Nominations for Election',1119952701,'Rule 2118/0 (Power=1)\nNominations for Election\n\n A person is a nominator and a prospective in an election only if\n e is an active player. The rules may further restrict validity\n of nominators and prospectives.\n\n A nominator nominates a prospective in a specified election by\n announcement. That nominator may publicly retract eir\n nomination of that prospective.\n\n A prospective may publicly decline eir nomination; if e does so,\n e may not be further nominated in that election.\n\n A nominee in an election is a prospective who has been nominated\n and whose nomination has not been retracted or declined.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405593,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1445,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Defaults for Elections','Defaults for Elections',1119952701,'Rule 1445/19 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections\n\n When the rules require a player to hold an election, e shall\n perform the following actions in order, beginning as soon as\n possible:\n\n (a) E shall publish a call for nominees, optionally specifying\n the mode of nominations for the upcoming election. One week\n later, if there are no nominees, e shall repeat this step in\n its entirety.\n\n (b) E shall initiate an election, which is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision:\n\n (1) The available options are the nominees. Eir\n announcement initiating the election must indicate the\n available options.\n\n (2) The eligible voters are the active players.\n\n (3) E is the vote collector.\n\n (4) If the vote collector has not yet resolved the election,\n then any nominee may stand down by announcement. When a\n nominee stands down, e is removed from the list of\n options for the election.\n\n (c) The vote collector for an election is required to resolve\n the election as soon as possible after the end of its voting\n period. If the option selected by Agora is a nominee, that\n nominee is the winner of the election. Otherwise, the\n election has no winner.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1499 (Blob), Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2543, Mar. 19 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2578, Apr. 21 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2600, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2808 (Murphy), Feb. 8 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3564 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3616 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3836 (Elysion), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4017 (Elysion), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4031 (Elysion), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4257 (Murphy), 21 February 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4480 (Steve), 23 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405594,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1558,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Defaults for Elections for Offices','Defaults for Elections for Offices',1119952701,'Rule 1558/8 (Power=1)\nDefaults for Elections for Offices\n\n When the rules require that an election be held to fill an\n office, that election shall be conducted in accordance with the\n usual rules for elections, with the following exceptions:\n\n (a) If the election would be held to fill the office of\n Associate Director of Personnel, then the election shall be\n initiated by the Speaker; otherwise, it shall be initiated\n by the Associate Director of Personnel.\n\n (b) A player who is not eligible to hold the office for which\n the election is being held is not a prospective.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2564, Apr. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3628 (Murphy), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4509 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405595,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1659,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','The Right to Call Elections','The Right to Call Elections',1119952701,'Rule 1659/6 (Power=1)\nThe Right to Call Elections\n\n The Speaker has the right to call elections, and e exercises\n this right by a publishing a notice listing a number of offices\n and declaring that e is exercising eir right to call elections\n for these offices. If e has not exercised this right since e\n last became Speaker, then upon the publication of this notice,\n the electee of each listed office is retired from office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2706, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 20 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405596,'rcs','00000001.00000180',1681,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1119952701,'Rule 1681/6 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n Within a category, the ordering of rules is decided by the\n Rulekeepor. All existing categories must be listed, even if no\n rules are currently assigned to the category.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s\n number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also\n include any annotations to the rule required by order.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, as\n well as a brief description of each category and any historical\n annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405597,'rcs','00000001.00000182',2105,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1120478602,'Rule 2105/1 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER REEF\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | |\n / | | \\\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\\n / | | | <- BRISBANE\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ |\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE ->\n \\ __/ \\_ / /\n PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | /\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005'),(405598,'rcs','00000001.00000184',1016,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005','Activity Levels','Activity Levels',1121057120,'Rule 1016/18 (Power=2)\nActivity Levels\n\n Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and\n inactive.\n\n \"Off hold\" and \"on hold\" are unambiguous synonyms for \"active\"\n and \"inactive\", respectively.\n\n A player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the\n past week.\n\n A player may, with Support and without 2 Objections, flip the\n activity of another player to inactive, if that other player has\n not made a public post in the last 30 days. A player made\n inactive by this method becomes active immediately upon eir next\n public post.\n\n Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or\n be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by\n the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules\n explicitly state that they can require inactive players to\n perform that duty or action.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate\n activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because\n of eir activity.\n\n[CFJ 718: Because of Rule 1011, a Player may not be placed On Hold\n except as specified in the Rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 366 (KoJen), Aug. 10 1993\nAmended by Proposal 464 (Wes), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 870, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1016, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1337, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1374, Jan. 17 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1618, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2464, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2479, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), Jan. 22 1998\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4400 (Pakaran), 23 October 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005'),(405599,'rcs','00000001.00000184',2036,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005','The Silent Treatment','The Silent Treatment',1121057120,'Rule 2036/3 (Power=1)\nThe Silent Treatment\n\n If a player (hereafter the Silent One) has been inactive\n continuously for three months, then any player may publish a\n Notice of Abandonment, identifying the silent one and alleging\n that e has abandoned the game.\n\n The publication of a Notice of Abandonment commences the Silent\n Treatment for the silent one. If at any time during the silent\n treatment the silent one is not, or ceases to be, inactive, then\n the treatment is terminated, and the Registrar is relieved of\n all powers and responsibilities regarding it.\n\n As soon as possible after the commencement of the silent\n treatment, the Registrar shall publish in all designated Public\n Fora, and send to each listed e-mail address of the silent one,\n a Notice of Intent to Deregister, announcing the Registrar\'s\n intent to deregister the silent one after one month has passed.\n\n If the silent treatement has not terminated a month after the\n publication of the Notice of Intent to Deregister, then the\n Registrar shall, as soon as possible, publish in all designated\n Public Fora, and send to each listed e-mail address of the\n silent one, a Notice of Deregistration identifying the silent\n one. A Notice of Deregistration is valid if and only if it is\n published by the Registrar, following the procedures described\n in this Rule.\n\n Upon publication of a valid Notice of Deregistration, the\n following events occur in order:\n\n (1) if the silent one is the Speaker, e ceases to be Speaker;\n\n (2) the silent one is deregistered;\n\n (3) the silent treatment for that player concludes.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4511 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005'),(405600,'rcs','00000001.00000184',1940,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4819 (root, Maud), 10 July 2005','Periodic Compensations','Periodic Compensations',1121057120,'Rule 1940/10 (Power=1)\nPeriodic Compensations\n\n The boon of Public Service exists for the purpose of awarding\n officers for serving.\n\n Paperwork is a stuck switch for offices with states low and\n high. The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is the\n recordkeepor for paperwork. For the purpose of this rule, the\n Speaker and the Distributor are considered offices. The ADoP or\n the Speaker may flip the paperwork of an office with two\n supporters and without two objections.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the ADoP\n shall award 1 Public Service Boon for each office to the player\n (if any) who held that office for 16 or more days in the\n previous month; e shall award an additional Public Service boon\n to that player if the office is a high paperwork office.\n\n While a player is electee to an office, e may make one proposal\n distributable per month by publicly invoking that office\'s Civil\n Service Exemption, even if this would cause em to exceed eir\n per-player proposal limit.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4081 (Elysion), Oct. 30 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4140 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4179 (Taral), 7 July 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4260 (Goethe), 21 February 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4361 (Steve), 16 August 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4697 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4819 (root, Maud), 10 July 2005'),(405601,'rcs','00000001.00000184',698,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1121057120,'Rule 698/13 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible. A player who is inactive, unready, or is\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all ready, active, non-barred, players become\n eligible to judge that CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n ready, active, barred, players, other than\n the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active, players, other than the caller\n emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly\n annoying CFJ;\n\n (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005'),(405602,'rcs','00000001.00000184',559,'Amended(25) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005','The Registrar','The Registrar',1121057120,'Rule 559/25 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the register of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the\n following information:\n\n (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the\n player subject to the Grace period, the time at which\n it started, and the time at which it will end;\n\n (iii) a list of all Unready players;\n\n (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (v) each player\'s activity level, and the most recent date\n and method by which that player\'s activity level changed;\n\n (vi) the identity of the Distributor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1325, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1436, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1660, Aug. 14 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2451, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), Aug. 29 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4616 (OscarMeyr), 1 October 2004\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(25) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005'),(405603,'rcs','00000001.00000184',1941,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4819 (root, Maud), 10 July 2005','Fees','Fees',1121057120,'Rule 1941/4 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n A fee-based action is an action with which the rules associate a\n fee, which must be a natural number. If the rules describe a\n fee-based action but do not indicate the fee for that action,\n then that fee is zero.\n\n A player (the Actor) attempts to perform a fee-based action by\n announcing that e performs it; specifying the action to be\n performed; and, if the fee is nonzero, noting that there is a\n fee for the action. The Actor has sufficient kudos to perform\n the action if the number of eir kudos meets or exceeds the fee.\n Upon eir announcement, the Actor\'s kudos are decreased by the\n fee, and if e had sufficient kudos, e performs the action.\n\n If the success of the Actor\'s attempt to perform a fee-based\n action is publicly challenged within a week of the time the\n action was attempted, then the Herald shall, as soon as\n possible, determine whether the Actor had sufficient kudos when\n e attempted to perform the action, and announce eir\n determination.\n\n If the Herald announces that the Actor did not have sufficient\n kudos to perform a fee-based action at the time of eir attempt,\n and eir announcement was published within a fortnight from the\n time the action was attempted, then the action shall be deemed\n not to have been performed. If the Herald made this\n announcement within a week of the attempt to perform the action,\n or the success of the attempt was publicly challenged within a\n week of the attempt, then the Herald shall refund the Actor eir\n kudos.\n\n If the success of an Actor\'s attempt to perform a fee-based\n challenge is not publicly challenged within a week of the time\n the action was attempted, then the action shall be deemed to\n have been performed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall act to prevent a person from\n performing a fee-based action by another mechanism for\n performing that action provided by the rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4528 (Goethe), 2 October 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4598 (Elysion), 11 July 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4819 (root, Maud), 10 July 2005'),(405604,'rcs','00000001.00000184',2107,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005','Contracts','Contracts',1121057120,'Rule 2107/1 (Power=1)\nContracts\n\n There exists a type of agreement known as a Contract. A\n Contract is an Entity. The content of a Contract is called its\n Regulations. The first Player to announce the creation of a\n Contract is its Executor and is known as the Notary of that\n Contract. Any other Player may decide to become part of a\n Contract by notifying that Contract\'s Notary. Players party to\n a Contract, including the Notary, are the Members of this\n Contract. A Member may leave a Contract at any time by\n notifying the Notary.\n\n A Contract may contain any number of Regulations. Regulations\n have the power to constrain the actions of Players in the same\n manner as the Rules. However, Regulations have power over only\n those Players that are Members of that Contract. All Members\n are required to abide by the Regulations, unless doing so would\n violate the Rules. Violation of this requirement is the Class 1\n Crime of Insubordination. A Contract may include in its\n Regulations ways for Players to leave the Contract.\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no Player shall ever\n involuntarily become a Member of a Contract.\n\n If the Notary of a Contract is deregistered, all Members of this\n Contract cease to be Members of this Contract and the Contract\n ceases to exist.\n\n Only Members of a Contract may CFJ that a Member has violated\n that Contract. All Members of a Contract are automatically\n ineligible to Judge a CFJ that a Member has violated that\n Contract.\n\n All Rules regulating agreements that are inconsistent with this\n Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005'),(405605,'rcs','00000001.00000185',2040,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4823 (root), 17 July 2005','Switches','Switches',1122268632,'Rule 2040/4 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A switch is a set of states associated with a class of entities.\n Each switch shall have a default state, which if not otherwise\n specified shall be the first state mentioned in the rule\n defining the switch.\n\n The recordkeepor for a class of entities shall also maintain\n records of any switches associated with that class, as well as\n the current state of the switch for each entity of the class.\n If the recordkeepor is required to publish a report, that report\n shall include records of these switches. The rules may require\n a different player to maintain and report these records.\n\n Whenever an entity is created in a class of entities associated\n with a switch, it shall be in the state of the switch specified\n by the order or provision creating it; if no state is specified,\n it shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever an entity joins a class of entities associated with a\n switch, the entity shall be in the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever an instrument indicates that a switch on an entity is\n set or changed to some state, and the rules do not otherwise\n forbid it, the entity shall come to be in that state and\n simultaneously cease to be in any other state of the switch.\n\n A player who may flip a switch on an entity to some state other\n than the current state of the switch may do so by announcement.\n In eir announcement, e must indicate the entity, switch, and new\n state. Upon this announcement, provided it is valid, the switch\n is set to the named state.\n\n A switch is loose unless the rules define it as stuck.\n\n An executor of an entity may flip any of the loose switches on\n that entity, unless the rules otherwise prohibit doing so.\n\n The stuck switches on an entity can be flipped only when the\n rules so indicate.\n\n Whenever a switch is created, or becomes associated with a class\n of entities, then each entity in the class that had previously\n been in a state that is now a state of the switch shall continue\n to be in that state; all other entities in the class shall be in\n the default state of the switch.\n\n Whenever a state ceases to be a state of a switch, all entities\n in the class that had previously been in that state shall be in\n the default state of the switch.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4823 (root), 17 July 2005'),(405606,'rcs','00000001.00000185',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1122268632,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405607,'rcs','00000001.00000185',1686,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4822 (OscarMeyr), 17 July 2005','Official Reports','Official Reports',1122268632,'Rule 1686/16 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n The Rules may designate certain information to be part of an\n Office\'s Weekly Report, Bi-Weekly Report or Monthly Report. An\n Office\'s Weekly Reports, Bi-Weekly Reports and Monthly Reports\n constitute the Office\'s Official Report. All information that\n is part of an Office\'s Official Report shall be maintained by\n the corresponding officer.\n\n Each officer with a Weekly Report must publish it weekly unless\n the content of the report would substantially be the same as in\n the previously published report. In this case, a report must\n only be published within one week of the next substantial change\n to the report\'s content, but must at least be published once per\n month. Each officer with a Bi-Weekly Report must publish it\n once every two weeks and each officer with a Monthly Report must\n publish it monthly. Failure to do so is the Class 2 Infraction\n of Failure to Report. If an officer fails to do so for at least\n three consecutive reporting periods, e may be cited for either\n Failure to Report or the Class 10 Infraction of Dereliction of\n Duty but not both. Any officer cited for Dereliction of Duty is\n immediately removed from that office. The Associate Director of\n Personnel and the Speaker may report these Infractions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3918 (Murphy), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4164 (Murphy), 11 June 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4489 (root), 6 May 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4655 (Kolja), 29 March 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4695 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4822 (OscarMeyr), 17 July 2005'),(405608,'rcs','00000001.00000185',2059,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Legality of Bonus Clauses','Legality of Bonus Clauses',1122268632,'Rule 2059/3 (Power=2)\nLegality of Bonus Clauses\n\n The following Element is defined for cards:\n\n Grafty: If a card is Grafty, then it is Budgeted, with its\n initial quota set equal to one plus the number of Players who\n voted FOR the Proposal that first defined that class of card\n as Grafty. When the Deckmastor initially creates cards to\n fulfil this quota, e shall, Rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding, first destroy all existing copies of the\n card, then create one copy in the possession of the Deck, and\n finally create one copy in the possession of each Player who\n voted FOR said proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4537 (Murphy), 16 November 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4562 (root), 22 March 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4622 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405609,'rcs','00000001.00000185',217,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules',1122268632,'Rule 217/4 (Power=1)\nJudgements Must Accord with the Rules\n\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common\n sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game\n before applying other standards.\n\n[CFJ 684: An Injunction on the interpretation of a Rule is part of\n Game Custom.\n CFJ 897: The requirements in Rule 217 on Judgements apply to the\n determinations of the members of a Board of Appeal, as well as to\n the Judgements of Judges.\n CFJ 1139, Judged Jun. 20 1999: Judgements need not necessarily accord\n with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or Justices given in\n past CFJs.\n CFJ 1219, Judged May 23, 2000, Appeal decision published, Jun. 13\n 2000: A mistaken Judgement (ie one that does not accord with the\n Rules) is still a Judgement, as long as the technical requirements on\n the delivery of the Judgement have been met.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405610,'rcs','00000001.00000185',911,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1122268632,'Rule 911/13 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal.\n\n A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any\n Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible.\n d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by\n the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible\n Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n v) E is not Active.\n\n An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (ROnald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405611,'rcs','00000001.00000185',1570,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Announcement of Appeal','Announcement of Appeal',1122268632,'Rule 1570/2 (Power=1)\nAnnouncement of Appeal\n\n As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, the Clerk of\n the Courts shall announce the subject of the Appeal.\n\n As soon as possible after a Player becomes an Appellate Judge or\n ceases to be an Appellate Judge, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n announce the change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405612,'rcs','00000001.00000185',1447,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Final Judgement upon Appeal','Final Judgement upon Appeal',1122268632,'Rule 1447/18 (Power=1)\nFinal Judgement upon Appeal\n\n For an Appellate Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the\n following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules may modify this,\n based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1656, Aug. 14 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 10 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4109 (Steve), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405613,'rcs','00000001.00000185',2026,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Appellate Determinations','Appellate Determinations',1122268632,'Rule 2026/1 (Power=1)\nAppellate Determinations\n\n As soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have\n submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce\n that this has happened.\n\n If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is\n overturned. The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever\n Appelate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405614,'rcs','00000001.00000185',1670,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','The Distributor','The Distributor',1122268632,'Rule 1670/15 (Power=1)\nThe Distributor\n\n The person who is most responsible for the maintenance of one or\n more Public Fora, in the opinion of the Registrar, shall be\n known as the Distributor. Any changes in the identity of the\n Distributor shall take effect when announced publicly by the\n Registrar.\n\n The Registrar is obliged to keep the Distributor informed of all\n listed e-mail addresses of all Players, as well as to inform the\n Distributor of any listing or unlisting as soon as possible\n after e learns of it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 1670, May 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(5) by Rule 1454, Dec. 4 1997, substantial,\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Rule 1670, Dec. 18 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3754 (Steve), Jun. 9 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4141 (Wes), Apr. 15 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4511 (Murphy), 10 July 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405615,'rcs','00000001.00000185',2069,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Card Actions','Card Actions',1122268632,'Rule 2069/7 (Power=1)\nCard Actions\n\n I. Possession\n\n Cards may be possessed by Gamblers. All Players are Gamblers.\n If at any time a Card is not possessed by a Gambler, it\n immediately and automatically returns to the possession of The\n Deck.\n\n The Gambler that possesses a Card is that Card\'s Holder and\n Holds that Card. All Cards possessed by a particular Gambler are\n collectively referred to as that Gambler\'s Hand. A Gambler\'s\n Hand Size is the number of Cards in eir Hand plus one for each\n Pending Draw for that Gambler.\n\n II. Actions\n\n No action involving Cards may be simultaneous with any other\n action. No such action may be performed more than once\n simultaneously. If any attempt is made to perform more than one\n such action in such a way that the order of said actions is\n unclear, all such actions fail.\n\n (a) Unless restricted from doing so by the rules, any Gambler\n possessing a Card may transfer that Card to any other\n Gambler by announcing which Card is to be transferred and\n the Gambler it shall be transferred to. All such transfers\n take place at the time they are announced.\n\n If a Gambler transfers a card to the Deck, it is instead\n transferred to the discard pile, unless the transfer is made\n as part of the Deckmastor\'s required duties. Discarding a\n Card is synonymous with transferring said Card to the\n Discard Pile.\n\n (b) Drawing a Card and Drawing from The Deck are synonymous.\n\n When a Gambler Draws a Card, the Deckmastor shall be\n required to randomly select one Card from among those\n currently in The Deck\'s Hand and transfer it to that Gambler\n as soon as possible. Until this transfer takes place, that\n Gambler is said to have one Pending Draw for each such\n transfer the Deckmastor is required to make, but has not yet\n made. Whenever a player makes a true announcement that the\n number of pending draws for all gamblers is greater than the\n number of cards in the Deck, or that there are no cards in\n the Deck, then the Deckmastor shall transfer all of the\n cards in the Discard Pile to the Deck before dealing any\n cards. This transfer is known as a Reshuffle and is\n performed as a single action.\n\n A Gambler whose Hand Size is smaller than the maximum Hand\n Size, plus the number of Offices e holds, plus one if e is\n Speaker, may draw a card from The Deck. The fee for this\n action is a number of Kudos equal to the number of times\n during the current month e has previously drawn a card in\n this manner.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405616,'rcs','00000001.00000185',649,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1122268632,'Rule 649/17 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person\n is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne\n by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent\n Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that\n Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be\n changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may\n Bear Patent Titles.\n\n As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title\n shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or\n revoke that Patent Title.\n\n Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states\n Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without\n Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to\n Hysterical Significance.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005'),(405617,'rcs','00000001.00000185',1044,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005','Unique Patent Titles','Unique Patent Titles',1122268632,'Rule 1044/8 (Power=1)\nUnique Patent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is unique when the rules say it is. If a person\n is awarded a unique Patent Title, then the Herald shall revoke\n it as soon as possible from any person already Bearing that\n Title.\n\n The following are Unique Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Robespierre, which shall be awarded to the Player who\n called for a Revolt, if the Revolt succeeds.\n\n (b) Miscreant, which shall be awarded to a Player who has at\n least ten Blots and has a greater number of Blots than any\n other Player, if there is such a Player. It shall\n automatically be revoked if either condition becomes false.\n\n (c) Pugachev, which shall be awarded to the player who called\n for a Revolt, if the Revolt fails.\n\n (d) Manouchian, which shall be awarded to the player who called\n for a Revolt and deregistered before the Registrar\n announced that the Revolt succeeded.\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1335, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005'),(405618,'rcs','00000001.00000185',1370,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','How to Get a Degree','How to Get a Degree',1122268632,'Rule 1370/14 (Power=1)\nHow to Get a Degree\n\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis Draft, authored by emself, along with a statement\n explicitly indicating that the Thesis Draft is being submitted\n with the intent to qualify for a particular degree.\n\n If the Candidate is a Player, e may choose another Player to be\n the first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with\n the Chair\'s consent. For non-players, or if no other Player\n consents to be the Chair within one month of draft submission,\n the Speaker will serve as Chair.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the\n Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the\n Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the\n Justiciar shall so appoint, unless the Chair or the Candidate is\n the Justiciar, in which case the Clerk of the Courts shall so\n appoint. The two Committee members shall then select, by mutual\n consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be the third\n Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Candidate may\n publish a new Thesis Draft at any time, in response to Committee\n requests or of eir own choosing, by indicating it is a new Thesis\n Draft for the same Degree.\n\n If the Committee is dissolved without granting a degree, the\n Committee ceases to be a Committee, and the Candidate ceases to\n be a Candidate, and any existent Thesis Draft must be republished\n and subject to a new Committee selection to be eligible for a\n Degree.\n\n The Chair of a Thesis Committee may dissolve the Committee\n without granting a degree, with the consent of at least one other\n Committee member. To so dissolve, the Chair must publish a\n notice of intent to dissolve at least 14 days before dissolving.\n The Candidate may so dissolve the Committee at any time by public\n announcement.\n\n The Chair of the Thesis Committee for a particular Candidate may\n award that Degree to the Candidate if and only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n most recent Thesis draft produced by the Candidate is worthy\n of the Degree to be granted; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may have up to 14 days after a Degree is\n awarded to publish a Commentary for the Thesis. After that\n time, the Chair shall publish the most recent Thesis Draft along\n with all Commentary so published. This combined publication\n shall become the Final Thesis. Upon publication of this Final\n Thesis the Committee members cease to be Committee members for\n that Thesis.\n\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Final Thesis.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1370, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1508, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2487, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2682, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2715, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4303 (OscarMeyr), 17 May 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405619,'rcs','00000001.00000188',693,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1122269158,'Rule 693/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decisionmaking process takes place in the following three\n stages:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision: The decisionmaking process\n begins when a person authorized to initiate the decision\n announces the matter to be decided, including any additional\n information the rules require to be in that announcement.\n\n (b) Voting of the people: Immediately thereafter, the voting\n period for the decision begins. During the voting period,\n eligible voters may vote on the matter, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n (c) Resolution of the decision: After the voting period for the\n decision ends, any person authorized by the rules to resolve\n the decision may announce that the matter has been decided,\n specifying the option selected by Agora.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405620,'rcs','00000001.00000190',1932,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4829 (Maud), 30 July 2005','Shareholders and the Corporation','Shareholders and the Corporation',1123475441,'Rule 1932/12 (Power=2)\nShareholders and the Corporation\n\n A Stock Card is a card with the Element \"Shares [X]\".\n\n The Share Holdings of an entity is the number of Shares\n possessed by that entity. The Number of Shares is the sum of\n the Share Holdings of all entities.\n\n A Shareholder is an entity with positive Share Holdings. A\n Plebeian is a player who is not a Shareholder. The Corporation\n is the collection of all Shareholders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4084 (Steve), Nov. 9 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-005 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4555 (Elysion), 22 March 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4638 (root), 19 February 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4668 (Quazie, Murphy), 9 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4829 (Maud), 30 July 2005'),(405621,'rcs','00000001.00000190',1483,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4829 (Maud), 30 July 2005','Definition of Proposals','Definition of Proposals',1123475441,'Rule 1483/12 (Power=1)\nDefinition of Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A legislator submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as\n possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may\n modify its adoption index by announcement. The default adoption\n index of a proposal is one.\n\n All players are legislators.\n\n[CFJ 762: Anything contained in a Proposal is part of that Proposal,\n unless the Rules or Game Custom specifically says otherwise.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1619, Jul. 17 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3487 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3799 (Blob), Oct. 29 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3990, \"Harsher Blot Penalties\", (Elysion),\n Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4658 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4829 (Maud), 30 July 2005'),(405622,'rcs','00000001.00000190',1952,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4829 (Maud), 30 July 2005','Making Proposals Distributable','Making Proposals Distributable',1123475441,'Rule 1952/6 (Power=1)\nMaking Proposals Distributable\n\n The Promotor shall have a budget containing the per-player\n proposal limit, which shall be a positive integer defaulting to\n four.\n\n Depth is a stuck proposal switch with values undistributable and\n distributable.\n\n Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may\n flip its depth by announcement as long as the number of eir\n distributable proposals which have been submitted but have not\n been distributed or retracted is less than the per-player\n proposal limit.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4702 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4829 (Maud), 30 July 2005'),(405623,'rcs','00000001.00000190',1430,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4828 (Maud), 30 July 2005','Mandatory Rule Annotations','Mandatory Rule Annotations',1123475441,'Rule 1430/6 (Power=1)\nMandatory Rule Annotations\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeeper shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n (a) the type of change;\n (b) if the rule was changed due to a proposal, a reference to\n that proposal, its proposer, and any coauthors explicitly\n named in that proposal;\n (c) if the rule was changed by some other mechanism, the\n mechanism which specified the change; and\n (d) the date on which the change took effect.\n\n Other rules may require additional information to appear in an\n annotation for certain types of Rule Change.\n\n Annotations to a rule are not part of the rule, and annotating a\n rule is not a rule change. The Rulekeepor shall indicate all\n annotations in such a way that they are readily distinguished\n from the text of the rule.\n\n When a rule is repealed, all annotations attached to it are\n discarded, and need not appear in the published Ruleset.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1430 (Kelly), Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2738 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), Mar. 15 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3884 (harvel), Jul. 26 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4664 (Sherlock), 9 April 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4828 (Maud), 30 July 2005'),(405624,'rcs','00000001.00000191',101,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Agora May I?','Agora May I?',1125634913,'Rule 101/2 (Power=3)\nAgora May I?\n\n Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not\n regulated. An action is regulated if:\n\n (a) the action is prohibited;\n\n (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,\n then some player is permitted to perform the action;\n\n (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information\n for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor;\n\n (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible\n to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any\n combinations of actions by players; or\n\n (e) the courts have held that the action is regulated, and this\n finding has not been overturned.\n\n A player besides the Speaker is always permitted to deregister\n rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good\n forever.\n\n[CFJ ???: \"abide by all the Rules\" means the Rules as a whole, not\n necessarily each individual Rule.\n CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.\n CFJ 825: Players would have to obey the Rules even if 101 were\n repealed.\n CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405625,'rcs','00000001.00000191',1527,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Unsnarling Tangles','Unsnarling Tangles',1125634913,'Rule 1527/4 (Power=1)\nUnsnarling Tangles\n\n Whenever a message contains more than one note on which the\n rules place some legal significance, the notes shall be taken to\n have been sent sequentially in the order they appear in the\n message.\n\n A tangle is any set of two or more notes in a message, none of\n which can be determined to appear in the message before the\n others. If a message containing a tangle does not provide an\n order for the notes in that tangle, then the notes in that\n tangle shall be considered ambiguous and without effect if the\n effects of those notes on the gamestate would depend on the\n order in which they take effect, discounting the mere fact of\n their taking effect in a different order.\n\nCreated by Proposal 1750, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4150 (Elysion), 13 May 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405626,'rcs','00000001.00000191',478,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Fora','Fora',1125634913,'Rule 478/15 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion,\n and Public. A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except as\n described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may flip the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include a list of all public or\n discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow\n players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar need\n not keep track of null fora.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.\n CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.\n CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.\n CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: \"In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405627,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2039,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Ought implies can','Ought implies can',1125634913,'Rule 2039/1 (Power=3)\nOught implies can\n\n No player may be required to do anything e is not empowered to\n do, and the failure of a player to do something e was not\n empowered to do shall never constitute the commission of a crime\n or infraction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4440 (Steve), 3 February 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405628,'rcs','00000001.00000191',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1125634913,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 805: \"Person\" here means a natural person, not a legal person\n (such as a corporation) or something named \"person.\"\n CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405629,'rcs','00000001.00000191',1551,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Ratification','Ratification',1125634913,'Rule 1551/6 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A document required to be maintained and published by a player\n can be ratified if and only if:\n\n (a) the correctness of the document is not under dispute;\n\n (b) the information within the document has not been superseded\n by a subsequent document which contradicts it and whose\n correctness is not under dispute; and\n\n (c) the document is not the ruleset.\n\n If a player attempts to ratify a document, or a legislative\n order executed by the adoption of a proposal would ratify a\n document, then that document is not ratified unless it can be\n ratified.\n\n The electee to an office is permitted to ratify, without\n objection, an official report e produced and was required to\n maintain by virtue of holding that office. The Speaker is\n permitted to ratify, without objection, any official report. In\n either case, a claim of error on such a report shall be deemed\n to constitute an objection to ratification.\n\n When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that\n the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the\n time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any\n messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,\n or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n After a document has been ratified, its maintainer shall\n annotate all subsequent publications of that document with the\n date of publication of the most recent issue of that published\n that was ratified.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405630,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2068,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','The Deckmastor','The Deckmastor',1125634913,'Rule 2068/5 (Power=1)\nThe Deckmastor\n\n The Deckmastor is an office; its holder is responsible for fair\n play, shuffling, and dealing, and is the recordkeepor for cards.\n\n The Deckmastor\'s weekly report shall contain a record of all\n cards in existence, recent card actions, and what entity holds\n each card. The Deckmastor need not record or report transfers\n of cards to the table.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405631,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2114,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1125634913,'Rule 2114/1 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n A document is a cardbook if so designated by the rules. The\n Deckmastor is the recordkeepor of cardbooks; eir monthly report\n shall include each cardbook. As soon as possible after a\n cardbook changes, the Deckmastor shall publish that cardbook. A\n cardbook may only be changed as explicitly permitted by the\n rules.\n\n The Deckmastor may change non-substantial properties of any\n cardbook, specifically layout, whitespace, and the order of\n definitions, as e sees fit.\n\n A cardbook can define a class of cards by specifying its\n Caption, Frequency, zero or one Exploits, and optionally its\n Elements, and can define an Element by specifying its name and\n description. Neither classes of cards nor Elements may be\n otherwise defined.\n\n (a) The Caption is a string of text, unique to a particular\n class of cards.\n\n (b) The Frequency of a card is exactly one of the values Unique,\n Rare, or Common, defaulting to Unique if unspecified or\n incorrectly specified.\n\n (c) A card with a particular Element behaves according to the\n description of that Element.\n\n (d) An Exploit of a card may contain one or more Indications,\n Impositions, and Feats.\n\n (1) An Indication is a requirement for the gambler playing\n the card to select some entity or value.\n\n (2) An Imposition is a requirement the gambler may impose\n upon another gambler by playing the card.\n\n (3) A Feat is an action the gambler may perform by playing\n the card.\n\n (4) A Fuse is an Imposition or Feat that is not imposed or\n performed immediately, but rather when a stated\n condition occurs.\n\n A reference to \"you\" or \"your\" in any text on a card refers to\n the gambler holding the card unless it is on the table, and then\n refers to the gambler who played the card.\n\n The cards of a given class are fungible. Each individual\n instance of a card shall be considered to be a copy of that\n class of card.\n\n If there are conflicts between a card or element definition in a\n cardbook and the rules, then the conflict shall be resolved as\n if the definition were contained in the text of the rule that\n defines the particular cardbook. This rule takes precedence\n over any rule that would require a different method of resolving\n such conflicts.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule describing the\n definition or interpretation of card classes and card elements.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405632,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2069,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Card Actions','Card Actions',1125634913,'Rule 2069/8 (Power=1)\nCard Actions\n\n (a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules\n or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.\n\n (b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold\n cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.\n\n A gambler\'s hand is the collection of cards held by that\n gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the size of this\n collection, plus one for each pending draw for that gambler.\n\n (c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor\n shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as\n appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The\n Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement,\n specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder.\n Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.\n\n Whenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number\n of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be\n created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless\n otherwise specified.\n\n Whenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the\n quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card,\n a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck\n does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.\n\n (d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and\n the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the\n Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is\n discarded instead.\n\n When a card is otherwise transferred from one gambler to\n another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and\n the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the\n card.\n\n Discarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the\n discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous\n with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring\n it from the deck to that gambler.\n\n A gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by\n announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not\n discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.\n\n (e) A nonsite gambler whose hand size is smaller than the\n maximum hand size, plus the number of offices e holds, may\n draw a card for a fee equal to the number of times during\n the current month e has previously drawn a card in this\n manner.\n\n (f) When a gambler draws a card, e gains a pending draw. As\n soon as possible afterward, the Deckmastor shall deal a card\n to that gambler. When e does so, the draw is no longer\n pending.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\n As soon as possible after a player correctly announces that\n the sum of the number of pending draws for each gambler is\n greater than the number of cards in the deck, or that there\n are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall\n reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all\n cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to\n the deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405633,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2106,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Playing Cards','Playing Cards',1125634913,'Rule 2106/1 (Power=1)\nPlaying Cards\n\n A gambler plays a card with an Exploit by announcement,\n specifying the card to be played, indicating any entities or\n values mentioned in an Indication of the card\'s Exploit, and\n noting any fees required to play the card. A card without an\n Exploit cannot be played.\n\n When a gambler plays a card, the following events automatically\n occur in order:\n\n (a) The card is transferred to the table.\n\n (b) One at a time in the order listed on the card, the gambler\n places any Impositions listed in the Exploit on the\n appropriate gamblers and performs each Feat listed in the\n Exploit.\n\n (c) If the card is still on the table, it is discarded.\n\n If the card has any Fuses, then the first time the stated\n condition for a Fuse occurs, the gambler places the Imposition\n or performs the Feat associated with that Fuse as appropriate.\n\n The Elements or Exploit of a card may modify any of the above\n events.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4738 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405634,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2080,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Cards for Proposals','Cards for Proposals',1125634913,'Rule 2080/4 (Power=1)\nCards for Proposals\n\n Within a week after a proposal\'s adoption, if its proposer would\n be permitted to draw a card for a fee, then e may draw a card by\n announcement, specifying in eir announcement that proposal\'s\n number. E can only perform this action once for the adoption of\n that proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405635,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2086,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','The University of Agora','The University of Agora',1125634913,'Rule 2086/3 (Power=1)\nThe University of Agora\n\n The University, also known as the Library, is a site. The\n Speaker is the president of and a limited executor of the\n University.\n\n Education is a stuck player switch with values Student and\n Faculty Member. The Secretary of the University (SotU) is the\n recordkeepor of education. As soon as possible after a player\n is awarded a degree, the SotU shall flip the education of that\n player to Faculty Member.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405636,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2091,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','The Office of Secretary of the University','The Office of Secretary of the University',1125634913,'Rule 2091/2 (Power=1)\nThe Office of Secretary of the University\n\n The Secretary of the University (SotU) is an office; its holder\n is recordkeepor for the University.\n\n The SotU\'s Weekly Report shall include:\n\n (a) A list of all active Research Grants.\n\n (b) A list of all active Book Club Selections.\n\n (c) Each player\'s Education.\n\n (d) A list of who has checked out cards from the library.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4796 (Maud), 6 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405637,'rcs','00000001.00000191',2089,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005','Gardner Library','Gardner Library',1125634913,'Rule 2089/5 (Power=1)\nGardner Library\n\n Whenever the Library\'s hand size is less than five, it gains a\n pending draw.\n\n A player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified card\n from the Library by paying a Fee for the Library\'s upkeep. The\n fee is 2 Kudos for Students and 1 Kudo for Faculty Members. The\n card is reserved and may not be checked out by any player until\n it is dealt to the Library again by the Deckmastor.\n\n Whenever a card is checked out from the Library, it is\n transferred to the Borrower.\n\n The President of the University may discard any card in the\n possession of the Library without two objections.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4706 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4715 (Goethe), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4726 (root), 25 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405638,'rcs','00000001.00000193',1727,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1129528372,'Rule 1727/14 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June\n 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by First\n Speaker Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think\n we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules\n are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was\n played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its official\n name of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the\n hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent\n advice of Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year, and as soon\n as possible after the end of Agora\'s Birthday, the Herald shall\n award the boon of celebration to each Player who, during Agora\'s\n Birthday, publicly recognizes this Grand Event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405639,'rcs','00000001.00000193',1933,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1129528372,'Rule 1933/10 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Chamber is a stuck proposal switch with values ordinary and\n democratic. The default chamber for a proposal with an adoption\n index of at least 2 is democratic.\n\n An ordinary proposal with an adoption index of two or greater is\n stalled. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a stalled\n proposal is undistributable, and if a proposal is distributed\n that was stalled at the time of distribution, its chamber shall\n immediately and automatically be set to democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4570 (Elysion), 2 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4590 (Elysion), 4 July 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005'),(405640,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2019,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1129528372,'Rule 2019/4 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period\n by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is\n set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal\n plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\n As soon as possible after a vetoed proposal fails quorum, the\n Assessor shall a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool.\n When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and\n democratic, and its adoption index shall be increased by one.\n\n The Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting\n period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary\n proposal is three, other rules governing quorum nonwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005'),(405641,'rcs','00000001.00000193',698,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4835 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1129528372,'Rule 698/14 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible. A player who is inactive or unready is\n ineligible to judge CFJs.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all ready, active, non-barred players become\n eligible to judge that CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n ready, active, barred players, other than the caller\n emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ;\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n active, players other than the caller emself, become\n eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ;\n\n (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4835 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405642,'rcs','00000001.00000193',1661,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005','The Right of Patronage','The Right of Patronage',1129528372,'Rule 1661/11 (Power=1)\nThe Right of Patronage\n\n A Speaker has the Right of Patronage. This Right is the\n authority to, once a week, award the Boon Gold Star to a single\n Player who has not received this award within the preceding four\n weeks. The Speaker must provide a reason along with the Notice\n of Award.\n\n Such awards are only permitted to recognize acts the Speaker\n believes to be of benefit to the Agora community, acts that the\n Speaker believes to exceed the call of duty, or acts that the\n Speaker believes to be of extreme sacrifice for the good of the\n Game.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2708, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3644 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3660 (General Chaos), Jan. 17 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4033 (Chuck), Aug. 2 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4151 (Kelly), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005'),(405643,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2114,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Card Definitions','Card Definitions',1129528372,'Rule 2114/2 (Power=1)\nCard Definitions\n\n A document is a cardbook if so designated by the rules. The\n Deckmastor is the recordkeepor of cardbooks; eir monthly report\n shall include each cardbook. As soon as possible after a\n cardbook changes, the Deckmastor shall publish that cardbook. A\n cardbook may only be changed as explicitly permitted by the\n rules.\n\n The Deckmastor may change non-substantial properties of any\n cardbook, specifically layout, whitespace, and the order of\n definitions, as e sees fit.\n\n A cardbook can define a class of cards by specifying its\n Caption, Frequency, zero or one Exploits, and optionally its\n Elements, and can define an Element or Scoring Instruction by\n specifying its name and description. Neither classes of cards\n Elements, nor Scoring Instructions may be otherwise defined.\n\n (a) The Caption is a string of text, unique to a particular\n class of cards.\n\n (b) The Frequency of a card is exactly one of the values Unique,\n Rare, or Common, defaulting to Unique if unspecified or\n incorrectly specified.\n\n (c) A card with a particular Element behaves according to the\n description of that Element.\n\n (d) An Exploit of a card may contain one or more Indications,\n Impositions, and Feats.\n\n (1) An Indication is a requirement for the gambler playing\n the card to select some entity or value.\n\n (2) An Imposition is a requirement the gambler may impose\n upon another gambler by playing the card.\n\n (3) A Feat is an action the gambler may perform by playing\n the card.\n\n (4) A Fuse is an Imposition or Feat that is not imposed or\n performed immediately, but rather when a stated\n condition occurs.\n\n A reference to \"you\" or \"your\" in any text on a card refers to\n the gambler holding the card unless it is on the table, and then\n refers to the gambler who played the card.\n\n The cards of a given class are fungible. Each individual\n instance of a card shall be considered to be a copy of that\n class of card.\n\n If there are conflicts between a card or element definition in a\n cardbook and the rules, then the conflict shall be resolved as\n if the definition were contained in the text of the rule that\n defines the particular cardbook. This rule takes precedence\n over any rule that would require a different method of resolving\n such conflicts.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule describing the\n definition or interpretation of card classes and card elements.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405644,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2069,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Card Actions','Card Actions',1129528372,'Rule 2069/9 (Power=1)\nCard Actions\n\n (a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules\n or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.\n\n (b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold\n cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.\n\n A gambler\'s hand is the collection of cards held by that\n gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the size of this\n collection, plus one for each free pending draw for that\n gambler.\n\n (c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor\n shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as\n appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The\n Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement,\n specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder.\n Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.\n\n Whenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number\n of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be\n created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless\n otherwise specified.\n\n Whenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the\n quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card,\n a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck\n does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.\n\n (d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and\n the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the\n Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is\n discarded instead.\n\n When a card is otherwise transferred from one gambler to\n another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and\n the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the\n card.\n\n Discarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the\n discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous\n with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring\n it from the deck to that gambler.\n\n A gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by\n announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not\n discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\n As soon as possible after a player correctly announces that\n the sum of the number of pending draws for each gambler is\n greater than the number of cards in the deck, or that there\n are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall\n reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all\n cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to\n the deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405645,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2075,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1129528372,'Rule 2075/6 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Scoring Instructions contained in cardbooks, interpreted\n collectively, may define a nonsite gambler as holding a winning\n hand at a particular moment. If so, any Gambler has 72 hours\n from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a\n winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular\n Patent Title Champion.\n\n Exactly one week after a true announcement, the Flux of all\n Gamblers except the Deck shall become frozen, and all heavy\n pending draws shall be deemed satisfied.\n\n If no true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has been\n made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a\n Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of\n a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4740 (Quazie), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4764 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405646,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2080,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Basic Draws','Basic Draws',1129528372,'Rule 2080/5 (Power=1)\nBasic Draws\n\n The maximum hand size for a Player is defined as the maximum\n hand size in the Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices\n (including the Speakership) that the Player holds.\n\n Any Player may draw up to three heavy cards in a single month by\n announcement. If a Player draws a card without specifying the\n explicit circumstances allowing the draw, it shall be considered\n an attempt to draw one of these heavy cards.\n\n Any Player may draw one free card in a single month, by noting\n it is eir free draw for the month.\n\n Any Player may draw one heavy card for each Proposal e proposes\n that is adopted, by noting the Proposal\'s number.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405647,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2120,'Created by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Satisfying Draws','Satisfying Draws',1129528372,'Rule 2120/0 (Power=1)\nSatisfying Draws\n\n When a gambler draws a card as specified by the Rules, e gains a\n Pending Draw.\n\n Encumbrance is a stuck switch for pending draws, with values\n Free and Heavy. Drawing a [Encumbrance value] card is a synonym\n for gaining a pending draw with the indicated encumbrance.\n\n As soon as possible after a gambler draws a card, the Deckmastor\n shall satisfy the draw by dealing a card to the gambler with the\n pending draw, but only if the draw is Satisfiable. A draw is\n satisfiable unless defined otherwise.\n\n A heavy pending draw is not satisfiable as long as the gambler\n with the draw has a hand size equal to or greater than eir\n defined maximum hand size. If a gambler has both heavy and free\n pending draws, the Deckmastor must satisfy all satisfiable heavy\n draws before satisfying any free draws for that gambler.\n\n If the Rules state that a gambler loses a pending draw, than\n that draw is considered satisfied without the dealing of a card,\n whether or not it is satisfiable. E shall first lose all free\n draws before losing any heavy draws. If e has no draws, the\n Deckmastor shall discard a random card from that gambler\'s hand.\n If e has no cards, then the deckmastor shall satisfy the next\n pending draw e gains without dealing a card.\n\n A satisfied draw is no longer pending.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405648,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2049,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Ephemera','Ephemera',1129528372,'Rule 2049/2 (Power=1)\nEphemera\n\n Players may be permitted or required by the Rules to grant Boons\n or Albatrosses to other Players. If so, these awards are\n performed by public announcement. The Herald shall note the\n granting of all such awards.\n\n A Player who gains a Boon is considered to have drawn a free\n card for that boon. A Player who gains an Albatross loses a\n pending draw.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405649,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2089,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Gardner Library','Gardner Library',1129528372,'Rule 2089/6 (Power=1)\nGardner Library\n\n Whenever the Library\'s hand size is less than five, it gains a\n pending draw.\n\n A player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified card\n from the Library by announcement, which must satisfy a number of\n satisfiable pending draws that e, in fact, possesses. The\n number is 2 pending draws for Students and 1 pending draw for\n Faculty Members. The card is reserved and may not be checked\n out by any player until it is dealt to the Library again by the\n Deckmastor.\n\n Whenever a card is checked out from the Library, it is\n transferred to the Borrower.\n\n The President of the University may discard any card in the\n possession of the Library without two objections.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4706 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4715 (Goethe), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4726 (root), 25 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405650,'rcs','00000001.00000193',2104,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005','Contreras Card Labs','Contreras Card Labs',1129528372,'Rule 2104/2 (Power=1)\nContreras Card Labs\n\n The University encourages Card experimentation.\n\n There is a cardbook called the Blueprints Cardbook, which may be\n changed by Proposal, or as specified in this Rule.\n\n Any Player may, with support, add a Blueprint to the Blueprints\n cardbook. A Blueprint must be a valid card definition.\n\n Any card added in this manner shall have a quota of 0.\n\n Any Player may, with support, remove a Blueprint with a quota of\n 0 from the Blueprints cardbook.\n\n If a Blueprint has been in the Blueprints Cardbook for over four\n days, any Player may change the quota of that Blueprint from 0\n to 1 (if the card is unique) or from 0 to a number not greater\n than the number of active Players (if the card is rare or\n common), without three Objections.\n\n If the quota of a card is changed in this manner, the Deckmastor\n shall create one of the copies of that card in The Library\n rather than in the Deck.\n\n Any Player may add, delete, or amend a Scoring Instruction in\n the Blueprints Cardbook, with M support and without N\n Objections, where M is greater than or equal to N at the time\n the change is performed, and N is at least 1.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005'),(405651,'rcs','00000001.00000193',786,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005','Default Procedure for Conclaves','Default Procedure for Conclaves',1129528372,'Rule 786/15 (Power=1)\nDefault Procedure for Conclaves\n\n When the rules require that a conclave be convened and no\n competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as\n possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall\n convene a conclave by announcement, specifying the collection of\n qualified cardinals. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave\n unless the rules specify otherwise.\n\n The announcement is ineffective if the ADoP is not required to\n convene a conclave or eir announcement does not list all and\n only the cardinals qualified for that conclave. However, if\n errors are not announced until after 7 days after the conclave\n concludes, the results shall stand.\n\n The convening of a conclave initiates an Agoran Decision to\n determine the Pope, a decision in which quorum is zero, the\n voting period is 7 days, all Players are eligible voters, all\n qualified cardinals are valid options as long as they remain\n qualified cardinals, and the ADoP has the privilege of resolving\n ties as for elections.\n\n The ADoP\'s announcement of the cardinal chosen by Agora makes\n that cardinal the pope and concludes the conclave.\n\n If no cardinal may be legally chosen by Agora, the ADoP shall so\n announce, and the conclave concludes as a cliffhanger. If a\n conclave has not concluded within a fortnight from the time it\n was convened, any player may announce that it is inconclusive\n and thus conclude it as a cliffhanger. When an conclave\n concludes as a cliffhanger, this canon calls for a consecutive\n conclave to be convened to calculate the correct cardinal.\n\n If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its\n holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the\n first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir\n announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP\'s\n announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform\n the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that\n conclave.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 786 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1426, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1539, Apr. 4 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2500, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2828 (Zefram), Mar. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4049 (Elysion), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), Sep. 14 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005'),(405652,'rcs','00000001.00000193',402,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005','Church and State','Church and State',1129528372,'Rule 402/13 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current\n Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.\n\n When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately\n ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e\n immediately ceases being a pope.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that\n e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a\n pope, so please treat em right good forever.\n\n A notice of papal succession is a notice published by the\n Associate Director of Personnel, that declares that a specified\n player is a pope, and is valid if the named player is indeed a\n pope. Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession,\n the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the\n new Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005'),(405653,'rcs','00000001.00000194',1677,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005','Honoring the New','Honoring the New',1133755494,'Rule 1677/14 (Power=1)\nHonoring the New\n\n Readiness is a stuck player switch with values unready and\n ready. A player may flip eir readiness to ready.\n\n Whenever a player registers who has not been registered within\n the previous year, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace\n Period beginning immediately and lasting for sixty days, not\n including Holidays. At the end of eir Grace Period, e becomes\n ready.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of a player\'s Grace\n Period, the Registrar shall announce eir arrival. This\n announcement grants the player three free pending draws.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2757 (Swann), Nov. 28 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Propoal 3520 (Harlequin), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3804 (General Chaos), Nov. 19 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), Apr. 25 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4344 (Goethe), 11 July 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4520 (Goethe), 30 July 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005'),(405654,'rcs','00000001.00000194',2019,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1133755494,'Rule 2019/5 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period\n by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is\n set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal\n plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\n As soon as possible after a vetoed proposal fails quorum, the\n Assessor shall place a copy of that proposal to the Proposal\n Pool. When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and\n democratic, and its adoption index shall be increased by one.\n\n The Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting\n period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary\n proposal is three, other rules governing quorum nonwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005'),(405655,'rcs','00000001.00000194',1681,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1133755494,'Rule 1681/7 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n Within a category, the ordering of rules is decided by the\n Rulekeepor.\n\n A new Rule is assigned to a category as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n The Rulekeepor may, without 2 objections, move Rules between\n categories, change the name of a category, and add or remove\n empty categories.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s\n number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also\n include any annotations to the rule required by order.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, as\n well as a brief description of each category and any historical\n annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005'),(405656,'rcs','00000001.00000195',2121,'Created by Proposal 4843 (Murphy), 9 November 2005','Cards for Ex-Cards','Cards for Ex-Cards',1133755784,'Rule 2121/0 (Power=1)\nCards for Ex-Cards\n\n When a class of cards ceases to exist, each non-site gambler\n gains a pending draw for each instance of that class that e\n possessed immediately before it ceased to exist.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4843 (Murphy), 9 November 2005'),(405657,'rcs','00000001.00000197',2069,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006','Card Actions','Card Actions',1141796378,'Rule 2069/10 (Power=1)\nCard Actions\n\n (a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules\n or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.\n\n (b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold\n cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.\n\n A gambler\'s hand is the collection of cards held by that\n gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the size of this\n collection.\n\n (c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor\n shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as\n appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The\n Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement,\n specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder.\n Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.\n\n Whenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number\n of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be\n created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless\n otherwise specified.\n\n Whenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the\n quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card,\n a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck\n does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.\n\n (d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and\n the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the\n Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is\n discarded instead.\n\n When a card is otherwise transferred from one gambler to\n another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and\n the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the\n card.\n\n Discarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the\n discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous\n with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring\n it from the deck to that gambler.\n\n A gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by\n announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not\n discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\n As soon as possible after a player correctly announces that\n the sum of the number of pending draws for each gambler is\n greater than the number of cards in the deck, or that there\n are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall\n reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all\n cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to\n the deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006'),(405658,'rcs','00000001.00000197',2075,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1141796378,'Rule 2075/7 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Scoring Instructions contained in cardbooks, interpreted\n collectively, may define a nonsite gambler as holding a winning\n hand at a particular moment. If so, any Gambler has 72 hours\n from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a\n winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface and the defined regular\n Patent Title Champion. All Players\' hands become subject to a\n Hand Reduction to the Minimum Hand Size. After the winner\'s\n hand is so reduced, e gains a number of pending draws equal to\n the Maximum Hand Size.\n\n If no true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has been\n made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a\n Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of\n a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded nor extra\n winner\'s cards dealt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4740 (Quazie), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4764 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006'),(405659,'rcs','00000001.00000197',2083,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006','Hand Reductions','Hand Reductions',1141796378,'Rule 2083/1 (Power=1)\nHand Reductions\n\n The Rules may declare that a nonsite Gambler\'s hand is subject\n to a Hand Reduction. A particular hand reduction must have a\n maximum hand size associated with it; if none is defined, the\n Maximum Hand Size in the Deckmastor\'s budget is used.\n\n As soon as possible after a requirement for a reduction arises,\n the Deckmastor shall:\n\n (i) Satisfy all satisfiable pending draws for that gambler and\n announce a pending hand reduction;\n\n (ii) Wait at least four days, during which e may not satisfy\n pending draws for that gambler;\n\n (iii) Discard cards at random from that Gambler\'s hand until eir\n hand size is equal to or less than maximum associated with\n the reduction.\n\n (iv) If a gambler loses no cards during a reduction, and has\n not played, transferred or discarded a card since the last\n reduction, the Deckmastor shall discard one card at random\n from the gambler\'s hand (if it has any cards).\n\n If a dispute on the gambler\'s hand size or pending draws is\n raised and not resolved prior to (iii), above, the Deckmastor\n shall not perform (iii) for that hand until the dispute is\n resolved. If no dispute is raised prior to (iii) being\n performed, then the reduction shall stand regardless of\n subsequent disputes. However, a Judge in such a dispute may\n Order the Deckmastor to perform further card transfers to\n resolve such disputes.\n\n If the Deckmastor knowingly reduces a hand incorrectly, e\n commits the Class 4 Crime of Card Thievery.\n\n If more than one hand reduction is pending for the same hand,\n then the Deckmastor need only perform the reduction for the\n reduction with the lowest associated maximum; this shall satisfy\n all pending reductions.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Player\'s hand becomes\n subject to a Hand Reduction to the maximum hand size in the\n Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the\n Speakership) that e holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006'),(405660,'rcs','00000001.00000197',2080,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006','Basic Draws','Basic Draws',1141796378,'Rule 2080/6 (Power=1)\nBasic Draws\n\n Any Player may draw up to three cards in a single month by\n announcement.\n\n Any Player may draw one card for each Proposal e proposes that\n is adopted, by noting the Proposal\'s number.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006'),(405661,'rcs','00000001.00000197',2120,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006','Satisfying Draws','Satisfying Draws',1141796378,'Rule 2120/1 (Power=1)\nSatisfying Draws\n\n When a gambler draws a card as specified by the Rules, e gains a\n Pending Draw.\n\n As soon as possible after a gambler draws a card, the Deckmastor\n shall satisfy the draw by dealing a card to the gambler with the\n pending draw, but only if the draw is Satisfiable. A draw is\n satisfiable unless defined otherwise.\n\n If the Rules state that a gambler loses a pending draw, than\n that draw is considered satisfied without the dealing of a card,\n whether or not it is satisfiable. If e has no draws, the\n Deckmastor shall discard a random card from that gambler\'s hand.\n If e has no cards, then the deckmastor shall satisfy the next\n pending draw e gains without dealing a card.\n\n A satisfied draw is no longer pending.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006'),(405662,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2124,'Created by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006','Agoran Consent','Agoran Consent',1142928804,'Rule 2124/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Consent\n\n If the Rules specify that an entity may perform an action with\n Agoran Consent, then the entity may perform the action with M\n supporters and without N objections, as long as M is greater\n than N.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006'),(405663,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2068,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','The Deckmastor','The Deckmastor',1142928804,'Rule 2068/6 (Power=1)\nThe Deckmastor\n\n The Deckmastor is an office; its holder is responsible for fair\n play, shuffling, and dealing, and is the recordkeepor for cards\n and chips.\n\n The Deckmastor\'s weekly report shall contain a record of all\n cards and chips in existence, recent card and chip actions, and\n what entity holds each card and chip. The Deckmastor need not\n record or report transfers of cards to the table.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405664,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2069,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Card Actions','Card Actions',1142928804,'Rule 2069/11 (Power=1)\nCard Actions\n\n (a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules\n or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.\n\n (b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold\n cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.\n\n A gambler\'s hand is the collection of cards held by that\n gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the size of this\n collection.\n\n (c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor\n shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as\n appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The\n Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement,\n specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder.\n Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.\n\n Whenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number\n of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be\n created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless\n otherwise specified.\n\n Whenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the\n quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card,\n a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck\n does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.\n\n (d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and\n the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the\n Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is\n discarded instead.\n\n When a card is otherwise transferred from one gambler to\n another, the former gambler shall cease to hold the card and\n the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold the\n card.\n\n Discarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the\n discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous\n with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring\n it from the deck to that gambler.\n\n A gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by\n announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not\n discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\n As soon as possible after a player correctly announces that\n there are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall\n reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all\n cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to\n the deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405665,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2075,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1142928804,'Rule 2075/8 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Scoring Instructions contained in cardbooks, interpreted\n collectively, may define a nonsite gambler as holding a winning\n hand at a particular moment. If so, any Gambler has 72 hours\n from that moment to announce that a Gambler holds or has held a\n winning hand.\n\n If the announcement is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, transfer 1 card at random from the announcing\n Gambler\'s Hand to the Deck.\n\n If the announcement is true, the holding Gambler Wins the Game,\n and is awarded the boon of Pokerface, the defined regular Patent\n Title Champion, and a blue chip (non-transferrable) marked with\n the number of red and white chips in the Pot (after which the\n Pot is emptied). All Players\' hands become subject to a Hand\n Reduction to the Minimum Hand Size. After the winner\'s hand is\n so reduced, e gains a number of pending draws equal to the\n Maximum Hand Size.\n\n If no true announcement of a winning hand or a Skunk has been\n made in the last six months, then any Gambler may announce a\n Skunk, which shall trigger the effects of a true announcement of\n a win above, except that no boon shall be awarded nor extra\n winner\'s cards dealt.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4740 (Quazie), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4764 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405666,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2083,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Hand Reductions','Hand Reductions',1142928804,'Rule 2083/2 (Power=1)\nHand Reductions\n\n The Rules may declare that a nonsite Gambler\'s hand is subject\n to a Hand Reduction. A particular hand reduction must have a\n maximum hand size associated with it; if none is defined, the\n Maximum Hand Size in the Deckmastor\'s budget is used.\n\n As soon as possible after a requirement for a reduction arises,\n the Deckmastor shall:\n\n (i) Satisfy all requirements to deal cards to that gambler for\n cashed-in chips and announce a pending hand reduction;\n\n (ii) Wait at least four days, during which the gambler may not\n cash in any chips;\n\n (iii) Discard cards at random from that Gambler\'s hand until eir\n hand size is equal to or less than maximum associated with\n the reduction.\n\n (iv) If a gambler loses no cards during a reduction, and has\n not played, transferred or discarded a card since the last\n reduction, the Deckmastor shall discard one card at random\n from the gambler\'s hand (if it has any cards).\n\n If a dispute on the gambler\'s hand size or pending draws is\n raised and not resolved prior to (iii), above, the Deckmastor\n shall not perform (iii) for that hand until the dispute is\n resolved. If no dispute is raised prior to (iii) being\n performed, then the reduction shall stand regardless of\n subsequent disputes. However, a Judge in such a dispute may\n Order the Deckmastor to perform further card transfers to\n resolve such disputes.\n\n If the Deckmastor knowingly reduces a hand incorrectly, e\n commits the Class 4 Crime of Card Thievery.\n\n If more than one hand reduction is pending for the same hand,\n then the Deckmastor need only perform the reduction for the\n reduction with the lowest associated maximum; this shall satisfy\n all pending reductions.\n\n At the beginning of each month, each Player\'s hand becomes\n subject to a Hand Reduction to the maximum hand size in the\n Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the\n Speakership) that e holds.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405667,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2080,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Chip Sources','Chip Sources',1142928804,'Rule 2080/7 (Power=1)\nChip Sources\n\n At the beginning of each month, each player gains three white\n chips and one red chip.\n\n Upon the adoption of a proposal, the author gains one white\n chip.\n\n A player who gains a Boon gains a red chip. A player who gains\n an Albatross loses a chip.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4635 (OscarMeyr), 23 January 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4753 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4761 (root), 15 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405668,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2120,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Cashing in One\'s Chips','Cashing in One\'s Chips',1142928804,'Rule 2120/2 (Power=1)\nCashing in One\'s Chips\n\n The Pot is a site.\n\n A player may cash in one or more of eir chips by transferring\n them to the Pot. As soon as possible after e does so, the\n Deckmastor shall deal em a card for each non-forfeited chip.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405669,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2122,'Created by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Gaining and Losing Chips','Gaining and Losing Chips',1142928804,'Rule 2122/0 (Power=1)\nGaining and Losing Chips\n\n If the rules say that a player gains a chip, it is created in\n eir possession. Rumor and superstition have it that these chips\n come from a mystical place referred to in legend as The House,\n which is to be greatly feared by all gamblers.\n\n If the rules say that a player loses a chip, without specifying\n which chip e loses:\n\n (a) If e has at least one red chip, then one of eir red chips\n is forfeited to the Pot.\n\n (b) Otherwise, if e has at least one white chip, then one of\n eir white chips is forfeited to the Pot.\n\n (c) Otherwise, if e has at least one card, then the Deckmastor\n shall discard one of that player\'s cards at random.\n\n (d) Otherwise, the next chip e gains is immediately forfeited\n to the Pot.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405670,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2123,'Created by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Fees','Fees',1142928804,'Rule 2123/0 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n A player plays a fee of X by cashing in X chips. These chips\n are forfeited.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405671,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2049,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006','Ephemera','Ephemera',1142928804,'Rule 2049/3 (Power=1)\nEphemera\n\n Players may be permitted or required by the Rules to grant Boons\n or Albatrosses to other Players. If so, these awards are\n performed by public announcement. The Herald shall note the\n granting of all such awards.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006'),(405672,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2086,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006','Education','Education',1142928804,'Rule 2086/4 (Power=1)\nEducation\n\n Education is a stuck player switch with values Student and\n Faculty Member. The Herald is the recordkeepor of education.\n As soon as possible after a player is awarded a degree, the\n Herald shall flip the education of that player to Faculty\n Member.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4669 (Quazie), 9 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006'),(405673,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2089,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006','Gardner Library','Gardner Library',1142928804,'Rule 2089/8 (Power=1)\nGardner Library\n\n The Library is a site. The Deckmastor is a limited executor of\n the Library.\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of each quarter, the\n Deckmastor shall discard all cards in the possession of the\n Library. The Library then gains five pending draws.\n\n A player (hereafter the Borrower) may check out a specified card\n from the Library by paying a fee. The amount of the fee is 2\n for Students and 1 for Faculty Members.\n\n Whenever a card is checked out from the Library, it is\n transferred to the Borrower.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4657 (Sherlock), 29 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4706 (Quazie), 18 April 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4715 (Goethe), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4726 (root), 25 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4728 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006'),(405674,'rcs','00000001.00000198',2104,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006','Contreras Card Labs','Contreras Card Labs',1142928804,'Rule 2104/4 (Power=1)\nContreras Card Labs\n\n There is a cardbook called the Blueprints Cardbook, which may be\n changed by Proposal, or as specified in this Rule.\n\n Any Player may, with support, add a Blueprint to the Blueprints\n cardbook. A Blueprint must be a valid card definition.\n\n Any card added in this manner shall have a quota of 0.\n\n Any Player may, with support, remove a Blueprint with a quota of\n 0 from the Blueprints cardbook.\n\n If a Blueprint has been in the Blueprints Cardbook for over four\n days, any Player may change the quota of that Blueprint from 0\n to 1 (if the card is unique) or from 0 to a number not greater\n than the number of active Players (if the card is rare or\n common), without three Objections.\n\n If the quota of a card is changed in this manner, the Deckmastor\n shall create one of the copies of that card in The Library\n rather than in the Deck.\n\n Any Player may add, delete, or amend a Scoring Instruction in\n the Blueprints Cardbook, with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4734 (Sherlock), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4805 (Goethe, Manu), 20 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006'),(405675,'rcs','00000001.00000198',1377,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006','The Herald','The Herald',1142928804,'Rule 1377/19 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of Blots.\n\n The Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) The Stain of each Player and Fugitive from Justice.\n\n (ii) A list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance\n that at least one person Bears and that is not a Degree,\n with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (iii) A list of Degrees which have been granted, and which\n persons Bear them.\n\n (iv) Each player\'s Education.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006'),(405676,'rcs','00000001.00000198',681,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006','Conclaves','Conclaves',1142928804,'Rule 681/13 (Power=1)\nConclaves\n\n Agora exits from Conclave whenever a player becomes a pope.\n\n Agora enters into Conclave whenever there is no pope and one of\n the following triggering events occurs:\n\n (a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership, becomes inactive, or\n otherwise ceases to be Speaker without another player being\n installed as Speaker;\n\n (b) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the\n Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in\n which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified\n cardinals;\n\n (c) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which\n case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals;\n\n (d) no pope has become Speaker for the past six months; or\n\n (e) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker.\n\n As soon as possible after Agora enters into conclave, the\n Associate Director of Personnel must announce the fact and\n publish a list of qualified cardinals. All cardinals are\n considered qualified unless specifically restricted by the\n particular triggering event. If Agora is already in conclave\n when a triggering event occurs, Agora remains in conclave, but\n the qualification of each cardinal is modified to reflect the\n more recent event.\n\n While Agora is in conclave, any player may make a qualified\n Cardinal into a pope, with Agoran consent. If the legality of\n this action is not challenged within seven days of it being\n attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is\n subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n So there\'s always hope\n that you can be pope.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 681 (KoJen), ca. Oct. 29 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1423, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1695, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2604, May 26 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2697, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006'),(405677,'rcs','00000001.00000198',402,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006','Church and State','Church and State',1142928804,'Rule 402/14 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current\n Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that\n e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a\n pope, so please treat em right good forever.\n\n When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately\n ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e\n immediately ceases being a pope.\n\n As soon as possible after a cardinal becomes a pope, the\n Associate Director of Personnel shall install that pope as\n Speaker, by announcement. Upon this announcement, if the player\n is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker,\n and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a\n pope.\n\n This installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved\n challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the\n legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days\n of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even\n if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its\n holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then\n installation may be performed by any player by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006'),(405678,'rcs','00000001.00000200',2069,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4859 (root), 22 May 2006','Card Actions','Card Actions',1153197477,'Rule 2069/12 (Power=1)\nCard Actions\n\n (a) A nonperson entity is a site if so designated by the rules\n or a cardbook. A site may have one or more Elements.\n\n (b) A gambler is a player or a site. All gamblers may hold\n cards. If a card is held by a nongambler, the Deckmastor\n shall transfer that card to the Deck as soon as possible.\n\n A gambler\'s hand is the collection of cards held by that\n gambler. A gambler\'s hand size is the size of this\n collection.\n\n (c) When a card must be created or destroyed, the Deckmastor\n shall be empowered to create or destroy that card, as\n appropriate, and must do so as soon as possible. The\n Deckmastor creates or destroys a card by announcement,\n specifying as appropriate its holder or its former holder.\n Cards can be neither created nor destroyed otherwise.\n\n Whenever the quota for a class of cards exceeds the number\n of existing copies of that card, a copy of that card must be\n created. The copy must be created in the deck\'s hand unless\n otherwise specified.\n\n Whenever the number of existing copies of a card exceeds the\n quota for its class, if the deck holds a copy of that card,\n a copy held by the deck must be destroyed, and if the deck\n does not, then a random copy of the card must be destroyed.\n\n (d) If a card would be transferred to the deck or the table, and\n the transfer is not performed automatically, as part of the\n Deckmastor\'s duties, or as the result of a card play, it is\n discarded instead.\n\n When a card or chip is otherwise transferred from one\n gambler to another, the former gambler shall cease to hold\n it and the latter gambler shall simultaneously come to hold\n it.\n\n Discarding a card is synonymous with transferring it to the\n discard pile. Dealing a card to a gambler is synonymous\n with selecting a random card from the deck and transferring\n it from the deck to that gambler.\n\n A gambler may transfer a card e holds to another gambler by\n announcement, specifying the card to transfer and, if not\n discarding it, the gambler to receive the card.\n\n If the Deckmastor errs, in good faith, in selecting a\n particular card to deal, and that error does not greatly\n change the probability of selecting that card, that deal\n shall be allowed to stand.\n\n As soon as possible after a player correctly announces that\n there are no cards in the deck, then the Deckmastor shall\n reshuffle the deck. Whenever the deck is reshuffled, all\n cards in the discard pile are automatically transferred to\n the deck.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4573 (Wes), 14 May 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4625 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4633 (Goethe), 9 January 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4674 (OscarMeyr), 13 April 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4694 (Goethe), 18 April 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4733 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4739 (root), 5 May 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4834 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4859 (root), 22 May 2006'),(405679,'rcs','00000001.00000200',2075,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4856 (Goethe), 22 May 2006','Winning Hands','Winning Hands',1153197477,'Rule 2075/9 (Power=1)\nWinning Hands\n\n The Scoring Instructions contained in cardbooks, interpreted\n collectively, may define a nonsite gambler as holding a winning\n hand. Any Player may allege that a nonsite gambler holds a\n winning hand. The allegation is considered true if any nonsite\n gambler holds a winning hand at the time of the allegation.\n\n If the allegation is true, the following events occur in order,\n immediately upon the allegation being made:\n\n (i) All nonsite gamblers holding winning hands are deemed to\n win the game simultaneously, and are awarded the defined\n regular Patent Title Champion, five white chips, and a\n blue chip (non-transferrable) marked with the number of\n red and white chips in the Pot.\n\n (ii) The pot is emptied.\n\n (iii) All Scoring Instructions in the Blueprints Cardbook are\n repealed.\n\n (iv) All Players\' hands become subject to a Hand Reduction to\n the Minimum Hand Size.\n\n If the allegation is false, the Deckmastor shall, as soon as\n possible, discard 1 card at random from the hand of the Gambler\n who made the allegation.\n\n If no true allegation of a winning hand or a Skunk has been made\n in the last six months, then any Gambler may allege a Skunk,\n which, if true, triggers the effects of (iii) and (iv) above.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4626 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4740 (Quazie), 5 May 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4764 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4838 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4856 (Goethe), 22 May 2006'),(405680,'rcs','00000001.00000200',2083,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4858 (Goethe), 22 May 2006','Hand Reductions','Hand Reductions',1153197477,'Rule 2083/3 (Power=1)\nHand Reductions\n\n The Rules may declare that a nonsite Gambler\'s hand is subject\n to a Hand Reduction. A particular hand reduction must have a\n maximum hand size associated with it; if none is defined, the\n Maximum Hand Size in the Deckmastor\'s budget is used.\n\n As soon as possible after a requirement for a reduction arises,\n the Deckmastor shall:\n\n (i) Announce the pending hand reduction;\n\n (ii) Wait at least four days after the announcement;\n\n (iii) Discard cards at random from that Gambler\'s hand until eir\n hand size is equal to or less than maximum associated with\n the reduction.\n\n (iv) If a gambler loses no cards during a reduction, and has\n neither played nor transferred a card since the last\n reduction, the Deckmastor shall discard one card at random\n from the gambler\'s hand (if it has any cards).\n\n If a dispute on the gambler\'s hand size or pending draws is\n raised and not resolved prior to (iii), above, the Deckmastor\n shall not perform (iii) for that hand until the dispute is\n resolved. If no dispute is raised prior to (iii) being\n performed, then the reduction shall stand regardless of\n subsequent disputes. However, a Judge in such a dispute may\n Order the Deckmastor to perform further card transfers to\n resolve such disputes.\n\n If the Deckmastor knowingly reduces a hand incorrectly, e\n commits the Class 4 Crime of Card Thievery.\n\n If more than one hand reduction is pending for the same hand,\n then the Deckmastor need only perform the reduction for the\n reduction with the lowest associated maximum; this shall satisfy\n all pending reductions.\n\n At the beginning of each Quarter, every Player\'s hand becomes\n subject to a hand reduction to the maximum hand size in the\n Deckmastor\'s Budget plus the number of Offices (including the\n Speakership) that e holds. If at any time there are more\n unsatisfied pending draws then cards in the Deck and Discard\n Pile put together, the Deckmastor may announce a Shortage, with\n subjects every Player\'s hand to such a hand reduction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4644 (root), 12 March 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4858 (Goethe), 22 May 2006'),(405681,'rcs','00000001.00000200',2120,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4859 (root), 22 May 2006','Cashing in One\'s Chips','Cashing in One\'s Chips',1153197477,'Rule 2120/3 (Power=1)\nCashing in One\'s Chips\n\n The Pot is a site.\n\n Cashing in one or more chips is synonymous with transferring\n them to the Pot. A player may cash in one or more of eir chips\n by announcement. As soon as possible after e does so, the\n Deckmastor shall deal em a card for each non-forfeited chip\n cashed in.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4837 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4846 (Goethe), 1 January 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4859 (root), 22 May 2006'),(405682,'rcs','00000001.00000200',2123,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4859 (root), 22 May 2006','Fees','Fees',1153197477,'Rule 2123/1 (Power=1)\nFees\n\n A player plays a fee of X by cashing in X chips and indicating\n the fee to be paid. These chips are forfeited.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4851 (Murphy), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4859 (root), 22 May 2006'),(405683,'rcs','00000001.00000201',1933,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4863 (Goethe), 30 May 2006','A Proposal\'s Chamber','A Proposal\'s Chamber',1153197940,'Rule 1933/11 (Power=2)\nA Proposal\'s Chamber\n\n Chamber is a stuck proposal switch with values ordinary and\n democratic.\n\n An ordinary proposal with an adoption index of two or greater is\n stalled. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a stalled\n proposal is undistributable, and if a proposal is distributed\n that was stalled at the time of distribution, its chamber shall\n immediately and automatically be set to democratic. If the\n Promotor knowingly distributes a stalled proposal, e commits the\n class 4 crime of Improper Debate.\n\n Any player can flip the Chamber of a stalled proposal to\n democratic without objection. The Speaker can flip the Chamber\n of a stalled proposal to democratic with support.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3990, \"Agora Abhors a Vacuum\", (Murphy),\n Mar. 24 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), Feb. 20 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4570 (Elysion), 2 May 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4590 (Elysion), 4 July 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4599 (root), 11 July 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4863 (Goethe), 30 May 2006'),(405684,'rcs','00000001.00000201',402,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006','Church and State','Church and State',1153197940,'Rule 402/15 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that\n e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a\n pope, so please treat em right good forever.\n\n When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately\n ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e\n immediately ceases being a pope.\n\n Any Player who is not a pope may install the pope as Speaker, by\n announcement. Upon this announcement, if the announced player\n is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker,\n and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a\n pope.\n\n This installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved\n challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the\n legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days\n of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even\n if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006'),(405685,'rcs','00000001.00000202',649,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1157956512,'Rule 649/18 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules.\n\n As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title\n shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or\n revoke that Patent Title.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405686,'rcs','00000001.00000202',1922,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1157956512,'Rule 1922/10 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405687,'rcs','00000001.00000202',1367,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Degrees','Degrees',1157956512,'Rule 1367/7 (Power=1)\nDegrees\n\n A Patent Title is only a Degree if it is specifically made such\n by a Rule. Persons may come to Bear Degrees only as specified\n in the Rules. Once a person Bears a Degree, e shall keep that\n Degree forever.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule specifying default\n properties of Patent Titles.\n\n The following Degrees are hereby made legal:\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N. Hist)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N. Sci)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil)\n\n Degrees shall be ranked in the order they appear in this Rule,\n with Degrees listed latest in the Rule being ranked higher.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405688,'rcs','00000001.00000202',1370,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','How to Get a Degree','How to Get a Degree',1157956512,'Rule 1370/15 (Power=1)\nHow to Get a Degree\n\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis along with a statement explicitly indicating that the\n Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a\n particular degree. A Thesis (plural: Theses) is an essay whose\n topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general.\n\n The Candidate shall choose a Player other tham emself to be the\n first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the\n Chair\'s consent.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the\n Speaker shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the\n Candidate to be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the the\n Clerk of the Courts shall so appoint. The two Committee members\n shall then select, by mutual consent, a third person who is not\n the Candidate to be the third Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Chair of the\n Thesis Committee may award that Degree to the Candidate if and\n only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the Rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n Thesis is worthy of the Degree to be granted. Attention\n should be paid to the originality and strength of the work, as\n well as the extent of the work with regard to the expectations\n of the particular degree. The committee may award a lesser\n degree if appropriate; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may publish a Commentary for the Thesis.\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis that has\n resulted in a degree, along with all such Commentaries.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1370, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1508, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2487, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2682, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2715, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4303 (OscarMeyr), 17 May 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405689,'rcs','00000001.00000204',2105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1158644254,'Rule 2105/1 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER REEF\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\\n / | | | <- BRISBANE\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ |\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE ->\n \\ __/ \\_ / /\n PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | /\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405690,'rcs','00000001.00000204',101,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1158644254,'Rule 101/3 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absense of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absense of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to view.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to\n deregister rather than continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ ???: \"abide by all the Rules\" means the Rules as a whole, not\n necessarily each individual Rule.\n CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.\n CFJ 825: Players would have to obey the Rules even if 101 were\n repealed.\n CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405691,'rcs','00000001.00000204',2125,'Created by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1158644254,'Rule 2125/0 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if:\n\n (a) the action is prohibited;\n\n (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,\n then some player is permitted to perform the action;\n\n (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information\n for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor;\n\n (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible\n to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any\n combinations of actions by players; or\n\n (e) the courts have held that the action is regulated, and this\n finding has not been overturned.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405692,'rcs','00000001.00000204',1727,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1158644254,'Rule 1727/14 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played\n on, until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICAL NAME of\n Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year, and as soon\n as possible after the end of Agora\'s Birthday, the Herald shall\n award the boon of celebration to each Player who, during Agora\'s\n Birthday, publicly recognizes this Grand Event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005'),(405693,'rcs','00000001.00000204',478,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Fora','Fora',1158644254,'Rule 478/16 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Herald may change the publicity of a forum without objection\n as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Herald makes that forum public is sent to all existing\n public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include a list of all public or\n discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow\n players to receive messages via that medium. The Herald need\n not keep track of null fora.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.\n CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.\n CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.\n CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: \"In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405694,'rcs','00000001.00000204',754,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1158644254,'Rule 754/6 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted\n as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language\n synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall\n be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those\n contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language\n meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 712: This includes referring to a Player by a method other than\n eir name or nickname, as long as it is unambiguous.\n CFJ 744: In the context of Rule Changes, text in an existing Rule\n must be quoted exactly in order to be unambiguous.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405695,'rcs','00000001.00000204',1023,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1158644254,'Rule 1023/17 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n - Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at\n midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT\n on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters\n begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and\n October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of\n January begins.\n\n - A requirement to perform an action \"as soon as possible\" is a\n requirement to perform the action within seven days.\n\n - The term \"number\" shall be interpreted as \"real number\".\n\n - The term \"random\" shall mean a choice drawn with a process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is\n reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n[CFJ 1075: Rule 1023 should be interpreted such that no Rule with\n lower precedence than it can succeed in prohibiting activity of a\n purely discussionary nature.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405696,'rcs','00000001.00000204',2124,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Consent','Agoran Consent',1158644254,'Rule 2124/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Consent\n\n If the Rules specify that an entity may perform an action with\n Agoran Consent, then the entity may perform the action by\n announcement if all of the following are true:\n\n (a) e has published eir intent to perform the action,\n unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at\n least four days and no more than fourteen days before\n attempting to perform the action;\n\n (b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn)\n support for the intended action since intent was published;\n and\n\n (c) more players have announced (and not withdrawn) support than\n have announced (and not withdrawn) objections to the action\n since the intent was published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405697,'rcs','00000001.00000204',1769,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Holidays','Holidays',1158644254,'Rule 1769/3 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, no Proposal may be distributed by the\n Promotor, nor may any Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of\n Appeal, Decision of Appeals Boards, or Opinion be published by\n the Clerk of the Courts; however, if any of the above do take\n place during the Holiday in violation of this Rule, this Rule\n does not deprive them of their usual effects.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405698,'rcs','00000001.00000205',101,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1163062299,'Rule 101/4 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absense of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absense of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to\n deregister rather than continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ ???: \"abide by all the Rules\" means the Rules as a whole, not\n necessarily each individual Rule.\n CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.\n CFJ 825: Players would have to obey the Rules even if 101 were\n repealed.\n CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405699,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1793,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Orders','Orders',1163062299,'Rule 1793/2 (Power=1)\nOrders\n\n An Order is a command, executed by a player and directed to some\n entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action, or\n to refrain from performing one or more actions.\n\n An Order may be directed to the holder of an official position\n in eir capacity in that official position, and if the position\n changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide\n by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that\n position.\n\n An Order may also be directed at a prior order so as to affect\n the prior order\'s operation, as the Rules permit.\n\n All Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for\n their class are presumed valid and enforceable until proven\n otherwise by CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405700,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1794,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',1163062299,'Rule 1794/8 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an\n Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of\n the first class that matches.\n\n (a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the\n effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n\n (b) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of\n Appeals.\n\n (c) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the\n course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.\n\n (d) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any\n person and directed at any entity. A timing order is\n valid if and only if it orders the entity to perform, as\n soon as possible, a duty specifically required of em by\n the Rules that does not otherwise have a specified timing\n requirement, or for which the otherwise specified timing\n requirement will have been exceeded as soon as possible\n after the Order is executed.\n\n No other types of Orders are valid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405701,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1795,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Order Timing','Order Timing',1163062299,'Rule 1795/5 (Power=1)\nOrder Timing\n\n An Order may specify the time limit for the performance of an\n ordered action. If a time limit is less than 72 hours after the\n Order takes effect, the time limit shall be 72 hours. If no\n time limit is specified, time limit shall be as soon as possible\n after the Order takes effect.\n\n If an Order which commands the performance of an action is\n directed to an Office or other position of authority, and the\n holder of that position of authority changes after the Order\n takes effect, but before the Order is satisfied, then the\n current holder shall have as soon as possible to satisfy that\n order.\n\n The noncompliance of an order with this Rule does not deprive\n that order of all effect, but instead modifies the timing\n requirements of the order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405702,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1799,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Stay and Vacation of Orders','Stay and Vacation of Orders',1163062299,'Rule 1799/3 (Power=1)\nStay and Vacation of Orders\n\n The effect of staying an Order is to temporarily prevent the\n stayed Order from having any effect.\n\n A stay may be specified to expire after a fixed time. If no\n specification is made in the Order to Stay, the stay shall not\n expire.\n\n When the stay expires or is vacated, the previously stayed order\n again has effect as if it had been originally executed at the\n moment the stay ceases to be effective. However, if at the time\n the staying Order expires or otherwise ceases to have effect,\n the stayed Order has been vacated or is subject to another\n staying Order, it does not regain effect.\n\n The effect of vacating an Order is to permanently deny the\n vacated Order from having any effect. Vacating an Order to\n Vacate reinstates the ability of the vacated Order to have\n effect, as of the moment the Order to Vacate is itself vacated.\n\n Any Order may always be stayed or vacated by the Player (or, in\n the case of Appellate Orders, Board of Appeal) who executed it.\n Certain classes of Orders may be stayed or vacated in other\n circumstances as well, but only as the Rules allow.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3755 (Crito), Jun. 12 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405703,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1810,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Satisfying Orders','Satisfying Orders',1163062299,'Rule 1810/5 (Power=1)\nSatisfying Orders\n\n An Order requiring an entity to perform an action is satisfied\n when that entity performs that action. Other Rules may define\n other ways for Orders to be satisfied. Except when otherwise\n specified, a single action can result in the satisfaction of at\n most one Order. If an action would satisfy more than one Order,\n and no other specification is made, the Action satisfies the\n oldest Order which it would satisfy.\n\n Willfully performing contrary to valid orders, either through\n action or inaction, is a violation of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3954 (Elysion), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405704,'rcs','00000001.00000205',991,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Invoking Judgement','Invoking Judgement',1163062299,'Rule 991/6 (Power=2)\nInvoking Judgement\n\n Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the\n Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof\n of the existence of such a dispute.\n\n A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth\n or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming\n perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,\n Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,\n but not required, to take notice of these things.\n\n[CFJ 888: Non-Players may make Calls for Judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405705,'rcs','00000001.00000205',897,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Court Procedure','Court Procedure',1163062299,'Rule 897/4 (Power=1)\nCourt Procedure\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the\n Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and\n Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of\n the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from\n judging it. The Plantiff may bar one other Player when e submits\n the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging\n any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 897, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405706,'rcs','00000001.00000205',2024,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1163062299,'Rule 2024/3 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement that are submitted\n in a single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked\n CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible\n to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned\n as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.\n\n A Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a second judge\n by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and\n unlinking the first CFJ with any it was previously linked to,\n with the second judge\'s consent and provided the second judge\n has not been barred or recused from the first CFJ.\n\n The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in\n subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those\n CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those\n CFJs.\n\n If a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to\n be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from\n two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge\n is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more\n Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each\n other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still\n assigned.\n\n A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the\n Courts may dismiss any Excess CFJ.\n\nistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405707,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1868,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1163062299,'Rule 1868/4 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding\n judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor\n denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.\n\n As soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no\n Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a\n Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial\n Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e\n is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.\n\n Other rules may explicitly delay the timing requirement of\n making assignments, for example with respect to providing the\n Defendant with response time in a Civil CFJ.\n\nCFJ 1186 (Judged TRUE, Dec. 9 1999): \"The Clerk of the Courts is\n required by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time\n that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\n eligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\n identity of that Player is announced.\"\n\n[CFJ 1187, Judged TRUE Dec. 8 1999: \"A Judge is considered to be\n assigned to Judge a particular CFJ at the time that the Clerk of the\n Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and no sooner.\"]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405708,'rcs','00000001.00000205',698,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1163062299,'Rule 698/15 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all non-barred players become eligible to judge that\n CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n barred players, other than the caller emself, become\n eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; then\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4835 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405709,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1871,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Turns for All','Turns for All',1163062299,'Rule 1871/8 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n Whenever a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. Turned players are ineligible to be Trial Judge of any\n future CFJs. When a player registers, e is considered turned.\n\n Whenever an open CFJ has no Trial Judge assigned to it, and\n there are no players eligible to be assigned, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall publish a Notice of Rotation, specifying at least\n one such CFJ. Upon such an announcement, all turned players\n become unturned.\n\n The CotC may turn a player e expects to judge CFJs slowly or not\n at all, without 2 objections.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by selecting a\n Player to Judge a CFJ or Appeal who is not eligible to judge\n that CFJ or Appeal solely because e is turned, then that\n selection shall stand, unless the Clerk of the Courts points out\n eir error and makes a new selection before the selected Player\n returns Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405710,'rcs','00000001.00000205',408,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Late Judgement','Late Judgement',1163062299,'Rule 408/18 (Power=1)\nLate Judgement\n\n For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins\n when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts\n seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation\n Period ends, and lasts seven days.\n\n During a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the\n CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement.\n\n Upon the end of a Judge\'s Overtime Period, if e has not yet\n Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by\n announcement as soon as possible.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 215, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1383, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2587, May 1 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Aug. 14 1997, susbstantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Rule 408, Aug. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposl 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), Oct. 10 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4670 (OscarMeyr), 9 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4808 (Murphy), 15 June 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405711,'rcs','00000001.00000205',217,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules',1163062299,'Rule 217/5 (Power=3)\nJudgements Must Accord with the Rules\n\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common\n sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game\n before applying other standards.\n\n When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement\n contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the\n truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was\n issued.\n\n[CFJ 684: An Injunction on the interpretation of a Rule is part of\n Game Custom.\n CFJ 897: The requirements in Rule 217 on Judgements apply to the\n determinations of the members of a Board of Appeal, as well as to\n the Judgements of Judges.\n CFJ 1139, Judged Jun. 20 1999: Judgements need not necessarily accord\n with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or Justices given in\n past CFJs.\n CFJ 1219, Judged May 23, 2000, Appeal decision published, Jun. 13\n 2000: A mistaken Judgement (ie one that does not accord with the\n Rules) is still a Judgement, as long as the technical requirements on\n the delivery of the Judgement have been met.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405712,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1575,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Standards of Proof','Standards of Proof',1163062299,'Rule 1575/6 (Power=1)\nStandards of Proof\n\n Unless otherwise specified, all Judgements shall be consistent\n with the preponderance of the evidence.\n\n A defendant may not be assessed punitive damages for Rules\n Violations any worse than a formal apology, unless a Judge finds\n that evidence for the violation is beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\n The published Report of an Officer constitutes prima facie\n evidence of the truth of those matters reported therein which\n that Officer is required by law to report. This presumption may\n be set aside only by clear and convincing evidence to the\n contrary.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2469, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3603 (General Chaos), Dec. 9 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3653 (General Chaos), Jan. 1 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3968 (Harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405713,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1826,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Motions','Motions',1163062299,'Rule 1826/1 (Power=1)\nMotions\n\n A Motion is a formal request made by a Player to the Judge of a\n CFJ. A Motion is made by submitting it to the Clerk of the\n Courts, clearly identifying the CFJ to which the Motion applies.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall forward each properly-filed Motion\n to the Judge of the CFJ to which the Motion applies as soon as\n possible after receiving it. A Judge must either grant or deny\n each Motion so forwarded within five days of receiving it. A\n Judge grants or denies a Motion by sending eir determination on\n that Motion to the Clerk of the Courts, along with any reasons e\n chooses to provide.\n\n The effect of granting a Motion depends on its nature, but\n generally amounts to requiring the Judge to perform as requested\n by the Motion.\n\n Upon receipt of a Judge\'s determination on a Motion, the Clerk\n shall note the determination made and the reasons, if any, on\n the record of the CFJ, and shall notify the Player who made the\n Motion of that determination.\n\n If a Judge fails to Grant or Deny a Motion within five days of\n when it was forwarded to em by the Clerk of the Courts, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall Recuse the Judge and assign a new one\n as usual.\n\n If a Motion is made after a case is closed, and the original\n Judge of that case is not active or is not a player, then a new\n Judge shall be assigned to the case as usual.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405714,'rcs','00000001.00000205',789,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Orders to Annotate Rules','Orders to Annotate Rules',1163062299,'Rule 789/6 (Power=1)\nOrders to Annotate Rules\n\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE,\n may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor\n to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ.\n Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of\n that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule\n is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the\n original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The\n Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without\n Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way\n except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n[CFJ 684: Such an Order applies not only during Judging, but\n also in the everyday interpretation of the Rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 789 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2684, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405715,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1365,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions',1163062299,'Rule 1365/9 (Power=1)\nConcurring and Dissenting Opinions\n\n Two or more players may submit a Concurring or Dissenting\n Opinion for a given CFJ trial or appeals decision, via a single\n application to the Clerk of the Courts signed by all submittors.\n\n The opinion must include reference to the CFJ and the particular\n judgement or appeals decision to which it applies and be\n accompanied by reasons or arugments for the opinion.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish any properly submitted\n Opinion and append it to the text of the legal judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1365, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Nov. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2750 (Chuck), Nov. 18 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405716,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1564,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',1163062299,'Rule 1564/13 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The following are subject to Appeal:\n\n a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.\n b) The grant or denial of a Motion.\n c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order.\n d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required\n judicial duty.\n\n A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:\n\n i) Three Players Appeal it.\n ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em.\n iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a\n Crime.\n\n A single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order)\n may only be appealed once.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player\n becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall announce the event.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405717,'rcs','00000001.00000205',911,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1163062299,'Rule 911/14 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A\n Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the\n Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n\n An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (ROnald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405718,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1447,'Amended(19) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Final Judgement upon Appeal','Final Judgement upon Appeal',1163062299,'Rule 1447/19 (Power=1)\nFinal Judgement upon Appeal\n\n For an Appelate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement, a\n Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE,\n REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a\n Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN.\n Other Rules may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n If a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of\n Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a\n Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider\n the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only\n consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been\n delivered.\n\n If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is\n overturned. The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever\n Appelate Orders are necessary to enforce its determination.\n\n When a Judgement is overturned:\n\n a) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REVERSE, then\n the CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally,\n with the Judgement being that which a majority of the\n Appelate Judges agree on.\n\n b) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then\n the original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is\n recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ\n to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was originally\n assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as\n the original Judge for the same reason.\n\n c) If a majority of the Appelate Judges Judge REMAND, then the\n original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the\n Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if\n it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make\n the same Judgement for the same reason.\n\n d) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be\n reassigned as described above.\n\n As soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have\n submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce\n that this has happened.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1656, Aug. 14 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 10 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4109 (Steve), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405719,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1804,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders','Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders',1163062299,'Rule 1804/3 (Power=1)\nAppeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders\n\n As soon as possible after a Judicial Order or Sentencing Order\n is Appealed, the Clerk of the Courts shall stay it. If the\n Appeal is sustained, then the Board of Appeals shall vacate this\n stay as soon as possible. If the Appeal is overturned, then the\n Board of Appeals shall vacate the stayed Order as soon as\n possible.\n\n In the Appeal of a Judicial Order or Sentencing Order, the Board\n of Appeals shall consider whether the Order was properly and\n validly executed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405720,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1805,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Appellate Orders','Appellate Orders',1163062299,'Rule 1805/2 (Power=1)\nAppellate Orders\n\n Appellate Orders are executed by being sent to the Clerk of the\n Courts by the Lead Judge of a Board of Appeals, but do not take\n effect until their publication by the Clerk of the Courts. The\n Lead Judge must certify in the execution that the order is\n executed by the concurrence of the majority of the Justices\n comprising that Board of Appeals; failure to do so deprives the\n Order of effect.\n\n Appellate Orders are not subject to appeal. However, upon a\n judicial finding that the required certification was falsely\n provided, the Clerk of the Courts shall vacate the Order which\n was accompanied by that false certification.\n\n Appellate Orders are valid only if addressed to:\n a) The Clerk of the Courts in eir Official capacity;\n b) an Order issued by the Clerk of the Courts in eir Official\n Capacity;\n c) The Judge of the CFJ which that Board of Appeals was\n convened to consider, or any Order issued by that Judge in\n that particular CFJ; or\n d) any combination of the above.\n All other Appellate Orders are presumptively invalid.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as\n soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal\n which executed it.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n validity of Appellate Orders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405721,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1504,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Sentencing Orders','Sentencing Orders',1163062299,'Rule 1504/8 (Power=1)\nSentencing Orders\n\n Upon a finding in a Civil CFJ that the defendant has broken one\n or more Rules, the Trial Judge must execute exactly one of the\n following types of sentencing orders as punitive damages:\n\n (1) Without Objection and with 1 Support, an order the defendant\n to make a formal apology;\n\n (2) Without 2 Objections and with 2 Supporters, an order for the\n defendant to perform a specified service for the benefit of\n the Agoran community proportinate to the seriousness of the\n breach;\n\n (3) An order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey\n for a number of months equal to the power of the highest\n powered Rule that was broken;\n\n (4) If and only if the trial judge finds the defendant to to\n have acted willfully in breaking the rules, an order for the\n Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey for twice number\n of months equal to the power of the highest-powered Rule\n that was broken;\n\n (5) If and only if the judge finds the defendant to have acted\n egregiously, maliciously, or with a consistent pattern of\n abuse, with Agoran Consent, an order for the Registrar to\n deregister the defendant in disgrace (make em lawless). An\n order to be made lawless is automatically appealed upon its\n initial execution.\n\n These punishments are considered ranked with \"worse\" punishments\n being later in the list.\n\n If an attempted sentencing order does not receive the proper\n support or receives too many objections, the trial judge must\n execute another type of sentencing order.\n\n No other punitive damages may be assessed for Rules violations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405722,'rcs','00000001.00000205',908,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Formal Apologies','Formal Apologies',1163062299,'Rule 908/16 (Power=1)\nFormal Apologies\n\n A sentencing order may require a defendant (hereafter the Ninny)\n to publish a Formal Apology.\n\n A Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain\n the Ninny\'s error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for\n self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may\n include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge\'s choice, all of\n which must appear in the Formal Apology.\n\n A defendant must obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours of\n its execution.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 781, ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended by Proposal 908, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1362, Dec. 13 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1382, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1500, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2432, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Apr. 1 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2789 (favor), Jan. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, Nov. 11 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 908, Nov. 25 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405723,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1742,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agreements between Players','Agreements between Players',1163062299,'Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)\nAgreements between Players\n\n Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that\n agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A\n Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405724,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1503,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Rules Violations','Rules Violations',1163062299,'Rule 1503/6 (Power=3)\nRules Violations\n\n In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were\n a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every\n player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged\n Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding\n agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.\n\n The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima\n facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and\n privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to\n be bound by the rules.\n\n Other rules may further differentiate the treatment of rules\n violations from the treatment of violations of other types of\n agreements.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2700, Oct. 10 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4152 (Murphy), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405725,'rcs','00000001.00000205',2109,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Contracts','Agoran Contracts',1163062299,'Rule 2109/1 (Power=2)\nAgoran Contracts\n\n There exists a type of Contract known as Agoran Contract. An\n Agoran Contract is a Contract between any two entities. An\n Agoran Contract may only be created or amended by a Proposal and\n becomes effective when the Proposal takes effect. Unless\n otherwise specified in the Rules or Regulations, All Players are\n automatically Members of Agoran Contracts and no Player may\n leave an Agoran Contract.\n\n All Rules regulating Contracts that are inconsistent with this\n Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.\n\n The ADoP is required to keep track of all Agoran Contracts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4755 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405726,'rcs','00000001.00000205',1626,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Applications','Applications',1163062299,'Rule 1626/5 (Power=1)\nApplications\n\n An Application is any document, which has been submitted as an\n Application by some person, to a Player designed by the Rules to\n receive Applications of that particular type. The submittor is\n known as the Application\'s Sponsor.\n\n The Sponsor of an Application may attach the signatures of other\n persons, or signatories, to the Application at the time e\n submits it. The Sponsor may not attach any signature to an\n Application without first having obtained the explicit consent\n of the signatory. A signatory may revoke eir consent, once\n granted, by informing the Sponsor before submission.\n\n Signatures are presumed to have been attached with the consent\n of the signatory. This presumption shall be rebutted only by a\n declaration from the alleged signatory, made within 60 days of\n the submission of the Application, stating that the signatory\n did not consent or that e consented and then subsequently\n revoked eir consent. The Sponsor bears the burden of proof to\n show that such a declaration, once made, is false.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2605, May 26 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3565 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405727,'rcs','00000001.00000206',2109,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Contracts','Agoran Contracts',1164605897,'Rule 2109/1 (Power=2)\nAgoran Contracts\n\n There exists a type of binding agreement known as Agoran\n Contract. An Agoran Contract may only be created or amended by\n a Proposal and becomes effective when the Proposal takes effect.\n\n Unless otherwise specified in the Rules, all Players are bound\n by Agoran Contracts and no Player may leave an Agoran Contract\n while remaining a Player. The Proposal process shall, prima\n facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and\n privileges with respect to agreements.\n\n All Rules regulating Contracts that are inconsistent with this\n Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.\n\n The CotC is required to keep track of all Agoran Contracts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4755 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405728,'rcs','00000001.00000207',2124,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Consent','Agoran Consent',1164610011,'Rule 2124/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Consent\n\n If the Rules specify that an entity may perform an action with\n Agoran Consent, then the entity may perform the action by\n announcement if all of the following are true:\n\n (a) e has published eir intent to perform the action,\n unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at\n least four days and no more than fourteen days before\n attempting to perform the action;\n\n (b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn)\n support for the intended action since intent was published;\n and\n\n (c) more players have announced (and not withdrawn) support than\n have announced (and not withdrawn) objections to the action\n since the intent was published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405729,'rcs','00000001.00000207',402,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Church and State','Church and State',1164610011,'Rule 402/16 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce\n that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this\n announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em\n right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as\n the new Speaker.\n\n If the legality of an installation is not challenged within\n seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to\n stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if a Player becomes\n Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the\n Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405730,'rcs','00000001.00000207',1006,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Offices','Offices',1164610011,'Rule 1006/10 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and\n the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to acheive Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is acheived.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or\n as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain offical duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405731,'rcs','00000001.00000207',1551,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Ratification','Ratification',1164610011,'Rule 1551/7 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n An officer is permitted to ratify, without objection, an\n official report e produced and was required to maintain by\n virtue of holding that office. The Speaker is permitted to\n ratify, without objection, any official report.\n\n When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that\n the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the\n time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any\n messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,\n or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n A document\'s maintainer shall annotate all publications of that\n document with the date of its most recent ratification.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405732,'rcs','00000001.00000207',1377,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Herald','The Herald',1164610011,'Rule 1377/20 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of the History of Agora and its players.\n\n The Herald\'s Weekly Report shall include the following:\n\n (i) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n (ii) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames,\n if any, and listed email addresses;\n\n (iii) the most recent date on which each registered player\n registered;\n\n (iv) the current Officers and their dates of service.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405733,'rcs','00000001.00000207',1681,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1164610011,'Rule 1681/8 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s\n number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also\n include any annotations to the rule required by order.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeeper shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type\n of change, the date on which the change took effect, the\n mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was\n changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its\n proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405734,'rcs','00000001.00000207',1607,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Promotor','The Promotor',1164610011,'Rule 1607/12 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor is permitted to distribute a proposal in the\n Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must\n distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was in the\n Proposal Pool at the beginning of the week.\n\n The Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it\n accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being\n distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from\n the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal initiates the\n Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n proposal the identity of its proposer, the proposal\'s coauthors,\n if any, its chamber, and its adoption index. However, the\n failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal\n does not deprive the distribution of the proposal of any legal\n effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405735,'rcs','00000001.00000207',1450,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1164610011,'Rule 1450/5 (Power=1)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually\n exclusive offices. A Player holding one of these offices may\n not come to simultaneously hold another of them, unless there\n are no other Players in the game eligible. This Rule takes\n precedence over any other Rule that governs offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405736,'rcs','00000001.00000207',693,'Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1164610011,'Rule 693/8 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decisionmaking process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405737,'rcs','00000001.00000207',107,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1164610011,'Rule 107/3 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405738,'rcs','00000001.00000207',1950,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Voting Limits','Voting Limits',1164610011,'Rule 1950/13 (Power=3)\nVoting Limits\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter on a democratic proposal\n is always one and cannot be changed.\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is\n one, if not explicitly modified by other rules.\n\n After the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the\n vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by\n an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that\n person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the\n voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all\n subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405739,'rcs','00000001.00000207',955,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1164610011,'Rule 955/10 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, e shall\n determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405740,'rcs','00000001.00000207',106,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1164610011,'Rule 106/2 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker.\n\n The default adoption index of a proposal is one. Before the\n Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its\n adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption\n Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405741,'rcs','00000001.00000207',105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1164610011,'Rule 105/2 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign it a number, which must be greater than any number\n previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify\n the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the\n proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power\n equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the\n power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified,\n the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.\n\n (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can\n modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater\n than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have\n power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification\n specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and\n without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in\n the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity\n for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.\n\n (c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to\n be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted, modified, or repealed.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405742,'rcs','00000001.00000208',2126,'Created by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1165210408,'Rule 2126/0 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006'),(405743,'rcs','00000001.00000209',2127,'Created by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006','Conditional Votes','Conditional Votes',1165465228,'Rule 2127/0 (Power=1)\nConditional Votes\n\n A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted\n conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and\n thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the\n end of the voting period.\n\n The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified\n if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified\n condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity\n or paradox, from information published within the voting period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006'),(405744,'rcs','00000001.00000209',2126,'Created by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1165465228,'Rule 2126/0 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the\n recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and\n cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this\n rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.\n\n When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the\n integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each\n co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n The Promotor may accept reasonable synonyms for \"expend\" (such\n as \"pay\" or \"use\") as valid actions under this rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006'),(405745,'rcs','00000001.00000210',1450,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1168232566,'Rule 1450/5 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually\n exclusive offices. A Player holding one of these offices may\n not come to simultaneously hold another of them, unless there\n are no other Players in the game eligible. This Rule takes\n precedence over any other Rule that governs offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405746,'rcs','00000001.00000212',2128,'Created by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007','Winning','Winning',1174580672,'Rule 2128/0 (Power=1)\nWinning\n\n The current Speaker may, with two supporters, invite players to\n enter into a specified agreement (hereafter a Contest) to determine\n who wins the game. The contest must be open to all players.\n Winners determined by the procedures of the contest do in fact\n win the game. When the initiating Speaker ceases to be Speaker,\n the contest loses the legal authority to determine winners.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007'),(405747,'rcs','00000001.00000212',402,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007','Church and State','Church and State',1174580672,'Rule 402/17 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce\n that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this\n announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em\n right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as\n the new Speaker.\n\n If the legality of an installation is not challenged within\n seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to\n stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if a Player becomes\n Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the\n Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.\n\n If no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge\n finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive,\n unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal\n may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran\n Consent. This is not considered winning.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007'),(405748,'rcs','00000001.00000212',1922,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1174580672,'Rule 1922/11 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007'),(405749,'rcs','00000001.00000213',2129,'Created by Proposal 4879 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Dishonor Rolls','Dishonor Rolls',1174580950,'Rule 2129/0 (Power=1)\nDishonor Rolls\n\n When the Herald is ordered to place someone in the Chokey, e\n shall publically award em the patent title \"In the Chokey\".\n\n This title shall be automatically revoked after a length of time\n indicated by the sentencing order, and the Herald shall announce\n the revokation. If a sentencing order is executed against a\n defendant who already holds this title, the length of time of\n the new sentencing order shall be added to the time left on any\n previous ones.\n\n A person is considered to be In Disgrace while in the Chokey,\n between the execution and satisfaction of any sentencing orders\n binding em, or if deregistered for lawlessness. A person who\n leaves the game in disgrace shall be awarded the Patent Title\n Fugitive by the Herald. A Player may revoke the title Fugitive\n from emself as long as e is no longer in Disgrace. A non-player\n may have this title revoked by Agoran Consent.\n\n The rules may further specify actions prohibited to persons in\n particular types of disgrace.\n\n The Herald is encouraged to publish lists of those in disgrace\n separate from patent titles of honor, to indicate the disgrace.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4879 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405750,'rcs','00000001.00000214',1727,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1174581132,'Rule 1727/15 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,\n known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played\n on, until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICAL NAME of\n Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405751,'rcs','00000001.00000215',2126,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1174581288,'Rule 2126/1 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the\n recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and\n cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this\n rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.\n\n When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the\n integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each\n co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each quarter, for each office, the player (if\n any) who held that office for the majority of that quarter\n gains one VC.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned loses one\n VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n The Promotor may accept reasonable synonyms for \"expend\" (such\n as \"pay\" or \"use\") as valid actions under this rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405752,'rcs','00000001.00000216',2019,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1174581452,'Rule 2019/6 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period\n by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is\n set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal\n plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\n As soon as possible after a vetoed proposal fails quorum, the\n Promotor shall add a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool.\n When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and democratic,\n and its adoption index shall be increased by one.\n\n The Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting\n period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary\n proposal is three, other rules governing quorum nonwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405753,'rcs','00000001.00000217',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4886 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1174581600,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign it a number, which must be greater than any number\n previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify\n the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the\n proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power\n equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the\n power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified,\n the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.\n\n (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can\n modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater\n than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have\n power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification\n specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void\n and without effect. A variation in whitespace, capitalization,\n or substitution of section labels with the same ordinal position\n (e.g. 1 / a / i, 2 / b / ii, etc.) in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule,\n but any other variation does.\n\n (c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to\n be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted, modified, or repealed.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4886 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405754,'rcs','00000001.00000218',101,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1174582387,'Rule 101/5 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to\n deregister rather than continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ ???: \"abide by all the Rules\" means the Rules as a whole, not\n necessarily each individual Rule.\n CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.\n CFJ 825: Players would have to obey the Rules even if 101 were\n repealed.\n CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405755,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1030,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1174582387,'Rule 1030/5 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\nCFJ 1104 (Judged TRUE, Sep. 9 1998): \"The presence in a Rule of\n deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does\n not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only\n how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does\n arise.\"\n\n[CFJs 1114 and 1115 (both Judged Feb. 5 1999): This Rule is to be\n applied to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just\n because a Rule is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict\n with a Rule of higher precedence does not mean that the Rule is\n nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 202, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405756,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1727,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1174582387,'Rule 1727/16 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known\n unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,\n until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405757,'rcs','00000001.00000218',402,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Church and State','Church and State',1174582387,'Rule 402/18 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce\n that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this\n announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em\n right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as\n the new Speaker.\n\n If the legality of an installation is not challenged within\n seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to\n stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if a Player becomes\n Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the\n Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.\n\n If no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge\n finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive,\n unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal\n may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran\n Consent. This is not considered winning.\n\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405758,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1006,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Offices','Offices',1174582387,'Rule 1006/11 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and\n the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or\n as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405759,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1681,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1174582387,'Rule 1681/9 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s\n number, revision number, power, title, and text, and must also\n include any annotations to the rule required by order.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type\n of change, the date on which the change took effect, the\n mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was\n changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its\n proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405760,'rcs','00000001.00000218',693,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Decisions','Agoran Decisions',1174582387,'Rule 693/9 (Power=3)\nAgoran Decisions\n\n When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the\n decision-making process takes place in the following three\n stages, each described elsewhere:\n\n (a) Initiation of the decision.\n (b) Voting of the people.\n (c) Resolution of the decision.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405761,'rcs','00000001.00000218',2019,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1174582387,'Rule 2019/7 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period\n by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is\n set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal\n plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\n As soon as possible after a vetoed proposal fails quorum, the\n Promotor shall add a copy of that proposal to the Proposal Pool.\n When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and democratic,\n and its adoption index shall be increased by one.\n\n The Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting\n period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary\n proposal is three, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405762,'rcs','00000001.00000218',897,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Court Procedure','Court Procedure',1174582387,'Rule 897/5 (Power=1)\nCourt Procedure\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the\n Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and\n Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of\n the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that\n CFJ.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ.\n The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before\n the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 897, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405763,'rcs','00000001.00000218',2024,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1174582387,'Rule 2024/4 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement that are submitted\n in a single message and clearly labeled as Linked CFJs.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked\n CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible\n to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned\n as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.\n\n A Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a second judge\n by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and\n unlinking the first CFJ with any it was previously linked to,\n with the second judge\'s consent and provided the second judge\n has not been barred or recused from the first CFJ.\n\n The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in\n subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those\n CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those\n CFJs.\n\n If a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to\n be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from\n two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge\n is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more\n Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each\n other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still\n assigned.\n\n A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the\n Courts may dismiss any Excess CFJ.\n\nistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405764,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1365,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions',1174582387,'Rule 1365/10 (Power=1)\nConcurring and Dissenting Opinions\n\n Two or more players may submit a Concurring or Dissenting\n Opinion for a given CFJ trial or appeals decision, via a single\n application to the Clerk of the Courts signed by all submitters.\n\n The opinion must include reference to the CFJ and the particular\n judgement or appeals decision to which it applies and be\n accompanied by reasons or arguments for the opinion.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish any properly submitted\n Opinion and append it to the text of the legal judgement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1365, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Nov. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2750 (Chuck), Nov. 18 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405765,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1447,'Amended(20) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Final Judgement upon Appeal','Final Judgement upon Appeal',1174582387,'Rule 1447/20 (Power=1)\nFinal Judgement upon Appeal\n\n For an Appellate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement,\n a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE,\n REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a Judgement\n is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules\n may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n If a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of\n Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a\n Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider\n the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only\n consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been\n delivered.\n\n If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is overturned.\n The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are\n necessary to enforce its determination.\n\n When a Judgement is overturned:\n\n a) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the\n CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the\n Judgement being that which a majority of the Appellate Judges\n agree on.\n\n b) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REASSIGN, then the\n original Judgement is ignored, the original Judge is recused,\n and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to a new\n Judge in the same fashion as it was originally assigned.\n The new Judge cannot make the same Judgement as the original\n Judge for the same reason.\n\n c) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REMAND, then\n the original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of\n the Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as\n if it were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make\n the same Judgement for the same reason.\n\n d) If none of the above is true, then the CFJ shall be\n reassigned as described above.\n\n As soon as possible after all members of a Board of Appeals have\n submitted eir Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall announce\n that this has happened.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1656, Aug. 14 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 10 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4109 (Steve), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405766,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1504,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Sentencing Orders','Sentencing Orders',1174582387,'Rule 1504/9 (Power=1)\nSentencing Orders\n\n Upon a finding in a Civil CFJ that the defendant has broken one\n or more Rules, the Trial Judge must execute exactly one of the\n following types of sentencing orders as punitive damages:\n\n (1) Without Objection and with 1 Support, an order the defendant\n to make a formal apology;\n\n (2) Without 2 Objections and with 2 Supporters, an order for the\n defendant to perform a specified service for the benefit of the\n Agoran community proportionate to the seriousness of the breach;\n\n (3) An order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey\n for a number of months equal to the power of the highest\n powered Rule that was broken;\n\n (4) If and only if the trial judge finds the defendant to have\n acted willfully in breaking the rules, an order for the Herald\n to place the defendant in the Chokey for twice number of months\n equal to the power of the highest-powered Rule that was broken;\n\n (5) If and only if the judge finds the defendant to have acted\n egregiously, maliciously, or with a consistent pattern of\n abuse, with Agoran Consent, an order for the Registrar to\n deregister the defendant in disgrace (make em lawless). An\n order to be made lawless is automatically appealed upon its\n initial execution.\n\n These punishments are considered ranked with \"worse\" punishments\n being later in the list.\n\n If an attempted sentencing order does not receive the proper\n support or receives too many objections, the trial judge must\n execute another type of sentencing order.\n\n No other punitive damages may be assessed for Rules violations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405767,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1370,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','How to Get a Degree','How to Get a Degree',1174582387,'Rule 1370/16 (Power=1)\nHow to Get a Degree\n\n A person becomes a Candidate for a Degree when e publishes a\n Thesis along with a statement explicitly indicating that the\n Thesis is being submitted with the intent to qualify for a\n particular degree. A Thesis (plural: Theses) is an essay whose\n topic is any facet of Agora Nomic, or Nomic in general.\n\n The Candidate shall choose a Player other than emself to be the\n first member of eir Thesis Committee, called eir Chair, with the\n Chair\'s consent.\n\n If the Speaker is neither the Chair nor the Candidate, the Speaker\n shall appoint a Player who is neither the Chair nor the Candidate to\n be the second Committee member. Otherwise, the Clerk of the Courts\n shall so appoint. The two Committee members shall then select,\n by mutual consent, a third person who is not the Candidate to be\n the third Committee member.\n\n The Committee shall examine the Candidate and eir Thesis to\n determine eir qualifications for the Degree. The Chair of the\n Thesis Committee may award that Degree to the Candidate if and\n only if:\n\n * the Candidate has satisfied all prerequisites in the Rules for\n the award of that Degree;\n * a majority of members of the Thesis Committee agree that the\n Thesis is worthy of the Degree to be granted. Attention\n should be paid to the originality and strength of the work, as\n well as the extent of the work with regard to the expectations\n of the particular degree. The committee may award a lesser\n degree if appropriate; and\n * fewer than seven years have passed since that Committee was\n formed.\n\n Each Committee Member may publish a Commentary for the Thesis.\n The Rulekeepor shall retain a copy of each Thesis that has\n resulted in a degree, along with all such Commentaries.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1370, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1508, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2399, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2487, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2682, Sep. 26 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2715, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), Sep. 12 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4303 (OscarMeyr), 17 May 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4462 (Goethe), 17 March 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405768,'rcs','00000001.00000218',1626,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Applications','Applications',1174582387,'Rule 1626/6 (Power=1)\nApplications\n\n An Application is any document, which has been submitted as an\n Application by some person, to a Player designed by the Rules to\n receive Applications of that particular type. The submitter is\n known as the Application\'s Sponsor.\n\n The Sponsor of an Application may attach the signatures of other\n persons, or signatories, to the Application at the time e\n submits it. The Sponsor may not attach any signature to an\n Application without first having obtained the explicit consent\n of the signatory. A signatory may revoke eir consent, once\n granted, by informing the Sponsor before submission.\n\n Signatures are presumed to have been attached with the consent\n of the signatory. This presumption shall be rebutted only by a\n declaration from the alleged signatory, made within 60 days of\n the submission of the Application, stating that the signatory\n did not consent or that e consented and then subsequently\n revoked eir consent. The Sponsor bears the burden of proof to\n show that such a declaration, once made, is false.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2605, May 26 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3565 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405769,'rcs','00000001.00000219',2024,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1174582441,'Rule 2024/4 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement that are submitted\n in a single message and clearly labeled as Linked CFJs.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked\n CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible\n to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned\n as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.\n\n A Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a second judge\n by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and\n unlinking the first CFJ with any it was previously linked to,\n with the second judge\'s consent and provided the second judge\n has not been barred or recused from the first CFJ.\n\n The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in\n subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those\n CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those\n CFJs.\n\n If a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to\n be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from\n two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge\n is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more\n Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each\n other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still\n assigned.\n\n A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the\n Courts may dismiss any Excess CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405770,'rcs','00000001.00000220',1006,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Offices','Offices',1174582619,'Rule 1006/12 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office,\n and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405771,'rcs','00000001.00000220',1795,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Order Timing','Order Timing',1174582619,'Rule 1795/6 (Power=1)\nOrder Timing\n\n Orders to perform an action shall be satisfied as soon as\n possible, unless the Order specifies a different time limit. The\n minimum time limit is 72 hours after the Order takes effect; any\n time limit that would be shorter is extended to the minimum.\n\n If an Order to perform an action is directed to an Office or other\n position of authority, and the holder of that position changes\n after the Order takes effect, but before the Order is satisfied,\n then the time limit is extended (if needed) to one week after the\n change.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405772,'rcs','00000001.00000221',2110,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1174582897,'Rule 2110/1 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n If the legality of an action cannot be determined with finality,\n or if by a Judge\'s best reasoning, not appealed within a week of\n eir Judgement, an action appears equally legal and illegal, then\n the first player to announce this fact wins the game.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405773,'rcs','00000001.00000221',1922,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1174582897,'Rule 1922/12 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game. The\n Herald\'s report shall record how the player won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405774,'rcs','00000001.00000222',2124,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agoran Consent','Agoran Consent',1174584336,'Rule 2124/2 (Power=1)\nAgoran Consent\n\n An entity that may perform an action with Agoran Consent can do\n so by announcement if all of the following are true:\n\n (a) e has published eir intent to perform the action,\n unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at\n least four days and no more than fourteen days before\n attempting to perform the action;\n\n (b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn)\n support for the intended action since intent was published;\n and\n\n (c) more players have announced (and not withdrawn) support than\n have announced (and not withdrawn) objections to the action\n since the intent was published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405775,'rcs','00000001.00000223',2130,'Created by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007','Inactivity','Inactivity',1174585198,'Rule 2130/0 (Power=1)\nInactivity\n\n A player may become active or inactive by announcement.\n\n A player may, without objection, make another player inactive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007'),(405776,'rcs','00000001.00000224',105,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1174586185,'Rule 105/1 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign it a number, which must be greater than any number\n previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify\n the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the\n proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power\n equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the\n power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified,\n the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.\n\n (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can\n modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater\n than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have\n power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification\n specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and\n without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in\n the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity\n for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.\n\n (c) Repeal a rule. A Proposal can repeal a rule with power no\n greater than its own. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases\n to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted, modified, or repealed.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007'),(405777,'rcs','00000001.00000225',2024,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4895 (Murphy), 12 February 2007','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1174586309,'Rule 2024/5 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement that are submitted\n in a single message and clearly labeled as Linked CFJs.\n\n When submitting Linked CFJs, the players (if any) barred by the\n caller from judging the first CFJ are the only players e may bar\n from judging any of the other CFJs.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a Judge to a set of Linked\n CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The Judge must be eligible\n to Judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned\n as Judge of each of the Linked CFJs.\n\n A Judge (the first judge) may transfer a CFJ to a second judge\n by announcement, thus linking the first and second CFJs and\n unlinking the first CFJ with any it was previously linked to,\n with the second judge\'s consent and provided the second judge\n has not been barred or recused from the first CFJ.\n\n The Judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir Judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n If one or more Linked CFJs beyond the first are unrelated in\n subject matter to the first, then a Trial Judge may remand those\n CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts; e ceases to be Judge of those\n CFJs.\n\n If a Trial Judge is recused from a Linked CFJ, then it ceases to\n be Linked to any other CFJ. If a Trial Judge is recused from\n two or more Linked CFJs in a single message, or if a Trial Judge\n is simultaneously and automatically recused from two or more\n Linked CFJs, then those CFJs continue to be Linked to each\n other, but not to any other CFJs to which the Judge is still\n assigned.\n\n A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the\n Courts may dismiss any Excess CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4895 (Murphy), 12 February 2007'),(405778,'rcs','00000001.00000226',2024,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1174587713,'Rule 2024/6 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement deemed to be\n sufficiently similar that they should have a single judge.\n\n Linkage is transitive. When a set of one or more linked CFJs\n change jurisdiction, they remain linked to each other, but\n become unlinked from any other CFJs; they may become linked\n to one or more CFJs within the new jurisdiction.\n\n Multiple CFJs, submitted in a single message and clearly\n labelled as Linked CFJs, become linked. The players (if any)\n barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only\n players e may bar from judging the others.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall not assign judges directly to the\n members of a set of Linked CFJs, but shall assign a judge to the\n set, as if it was a single CFJ. The judge must be eligible to\n judge each member of the set, and is simultaneously assigned\n as judge of each member of the set.\n\n The judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n A trial judge may remand one or more linked CFJs to the Clerk of\n the Courts by announcement. E ceases to be their judge.\n\n A trial judge may transfer one or more of eir CFJs to a second\n trial judge by announcement (identifying one of the second judge\'s\n CFJs), provided that the second judge consents, and is eligible to\n judge all of them. The transferred CFJs become linked to the\n second judge\'s CFJ (and any others to which it is already linked).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4895 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007'),(405779,'rcs','00000001.00000226',2132,'Created by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007','Excess CFJs','Excess CFJs',1174587713,'Rule 2132/0 (Power=1)\nExcess CFJs\n\n A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs\n during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ is an Excess CFJ. The\n Clerk of the Courts may dismiss an Excess CFJ by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007'),(405780,'rcs','00000001.00000226',1871,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007','Turns for All','Turns for All',1174587713,'Rule 1871/9 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if\n e was turned when it was called.\n\n When a player registers, e becomes turned.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a\n player. E is encouraged to do this only if e expects the\n player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all\n players become unturned. The Clerk of the Courts shall only do\n so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players\n eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least\n one player ineligible solely to being turned; e shall list all\n CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the second. However,\n failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice\n of effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007'),(405781,'rcs','00000001.00000226',2133,'Created by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007','Pragmatic Judicial Assignments','Pragmatic Judicial Assignments',1174587713,'Rule 2133/0 (Power=1)\nPragmatic Judicial Assignments\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by assigning an\n ineligible judge, then the selection stands. However, if the\n player has not yet delivered judgement, then the Clerk of the\n Courts may point out eir error and recuse the player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007'),(405782,'rcs','00000001.00000227',2126,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1174587814,'Rule 2126/3 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the\n recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and\n cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this\n rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.\n\n When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the\n integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each\n co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each quarter, for each office, the player (if\n any) who held that office for the majority of that quarter\n gains one VC.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned loses one\n VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007'),(405783,'rcs','00000001.00000228',1450,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1174597927,'Rule 1450/5 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n The Speaker, Clerk of the Courts, and Promotor are mutually\n exclusive offices. A Player holding one of these offices may\n not come to simultaneously hold another of them, unless there\n are no other Players in the game eligible. This Rule takes\n precedence over any other Rule that governs offices.\n\n[CFJ 1599: Because R1006 does not designate the Speaker as an office,\n the restriction of R1450 does not apply to prevent the CotC or Promotor\n from becoming Speaker.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405784,'rcs','00000001.00000228',683,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1174597927,'Rule 683/12 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the\n voting period for the decision.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609: To \"clearly identif[y] the matter to be decided\" does not\n necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405785,'rcs','00000001.00000228',955,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1174597927,'Rule 955/10 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, e shall\n determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJ 1605: Unanimity exceeds finite numerical adoption indices.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405786,'rcs','00000001.00000228',2024,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1174597927,'Rule 2024/6 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement deemed to be\n sufficiently similar that they should have a single judge.\n\n Linkage is transitive. When a set of one or more linked CFJs\n change jurisdiction, they remain linked to each other, but\n become unlinked from any other CFJs; they may become linked\n to one or more CFJs within the new jurisdiction.\n\n Multiple CFJs, submitted in a single message and clearly\n labelled as Linked CFJs, become linked. The players (if any)\n barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only\n players e may bar from judging the others.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall not assign judges directly to the\n members of a set of Linked CFJs, but shall assign a judge to the\n set, as if it was a single CFJ. The judge must be eligible to\n judge each member of the set, and is simultaneously assigned\n as judge of each member of the set.\n\n The judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n A trial judge may remand one or more linked CFJs to the Clerk of\n the Courts by announcement. E ceases to be their judge.\n\n A trial judge may transfer one or more of eir CFJs to a second\n trial judge by announcement (identifying one of the second judge\'s\n CFJs), provided that the second judge consents, and is eligible to\n judge all of them. The transferred CFJs become linked to the\n second judge\'s CFJ (and any others to which it is already linked).\n\n[CFJ 1602: A set of Linked CFJs is an entity distinct from the individual\n CFJs from which it is composed.]\n\n[CFJ 1601: When a Judge is to be assigned to a set of Linked CFJs as\n required by Rule 2024, references in Rule 698 to \"that CFJ\" or \"that\n increasingly annoying CFJ\" refer to individual CFJs, not to the set\n of CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4895 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007'),(405787,'rcs','00000001.00000228',698,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1174597927,'Rule 698/15 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all non-barred players become eligible to judge that\n CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n barred players, other than the caller emself, become\n eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; then\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n[CFJ 1600: In Rule 698 the phrase \"all barred players\" means all Players\n that are Barred from Judging the increasingly annoying CFJ.]\n\n[CFJ 1601: When a Judge is to be assigned to a set of Linked CFJs as\n required by Rule 2024, references in Rule 698 to \"that CFJ\" or \"that\n increasingly annoying CFJ\" refer to individual CFJs, not to the set\n of CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4835 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405788,'rcs','00000001.00000229',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1174597961,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405789,'rcs','00000001.00000230',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1174598546,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 1622: \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\n partnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1614: Being any type of foodstuff has no relation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405790,'rcs','00000001.00000231',402,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Church and State','Church and State',1174600195,'Rule 402/18 (Power=1)\nChurch and State\n\n A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current\n Speaker.\n\n For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other\n players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce\n that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this\n announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em\n right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current\n Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as\n the new Speaker.\n\n If the legality of an installation is not challenged within\n seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to\n stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal.\n\n Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if a Player becomes\n Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the\n Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent.\n\n If no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge\n finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive,\n unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal\n may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran\n Consent. This is not considered winning.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405791,'rcs','00000001.00000234',101,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1174683756,'Rule 101/5 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to\n deregister rather than continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825: Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405792,'rcs','00000001.00000234',478,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Fora','Fora',1174683756,'Rule 478/16 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Herald may change the publicity of a forum without objection\n as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Herald makes that forum public is sent to all existing\n public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include a list of all public or\n discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow\n players to receive messages via that medium. The Herald need\n not keep track of null fora.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405793,'rcs','00000001.00000234',754,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1174683756,'Rule 754/6 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted\n as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language\n synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall\n be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those\n contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language\n meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\n nickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405794,'rcs','00000001.00000234',1023,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1174683756,'Rule 1023/17 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n - Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at\n midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT\n on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters\n begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and\n October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of\n January begins.\n\n - A requirement to perform an action \"as soon as possible\" is a\n requirement to perform the action within seven days.\n\n - The term \"number\" shall be interpreted as \"real number\".\n\n - The term \"random\" shall mean a choice drawn with a process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is\n reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405795,'rcs','00000001.00000234',208,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1174683756,'Rule 208/3 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is\n authorized to resolve that decision, and does so by publishing a\n valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved,\n indicating the option selected by Agora. To be valid, this\n notice must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It clearly identifies the options available.\n\n (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision shall have at most one vote collector at a\n time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message\n initiating the decision, and can only be changed as specified by\n other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405796,'rcs','00000001.00000234',1868,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1174683756,'Rule 1868/4 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding\n judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor\n denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.\n\n As soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no\n Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a\n Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial\n Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e\n is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.\n\n Other rules may explicitly delay the timing requirement of\n making assignments, for example with respect to providing the\n Defendant with response time in a Civil CFJ.\n\nCFJ 1186 (Judged TRUE, Dec. 9 1999): \"The Clerk of the Courts is\n required by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is eligible at the time\n that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\n eligible at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\n identity of that Player is announced.\"\n\n[CFJ 1187, Dec. 8 1999: A Judge is considered to be assigned to Judge a\n particular CFJ at the time that the Clerk of the Courts announces the\n identity of the Judge, and no sooner.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405797,'rcs','00000001.00000234',217,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules',1174683756,'Rule 217/5 (Power=3)\nJudgements Must Accord with the Rules\n\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common\n sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game\n before applying other standards.\n\n When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement\n contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the\n truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was\n issued.\n\n[CFJ 897: The requirements in Rule 217 on Judgements apply to the\n determinations of the members of a Board of Appeal, as well as to\n the Judgements of Judges.]\n\n[CFJ 1139, Judged Jun. 20 1999: Judgements need not necessarily accord\n with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or Justices given in\n past CFJs.]\n\n[CFJ 1219, Judged May 23, 2000, Appeal decision published, Jun. 13\n 2000: A mistaken Judgement (ie one that does not accord with the\n Rules) is still a Judgement, as long as the technical requirements on\n the delivery of the Judgement have been met.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405798,'rcs','00000001.00000235',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1175027547,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 1275: An entity is a Player if the Rules cannot distinguish that\n entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1622: \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\n partnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1614: Being any type of foodstuff has no relation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405799,'rcs','00000001.00000235',478,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Fora','Fora',1175027547,'Rule 478/16 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Herald may change the publicity of a forum without objection\n as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Herald makes that forum public is sent to all existing\n public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include a list of all public or\n discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow\n players to receive messages via that medium. The Herald need\n not keep track of null fora.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the recipient\'s\n normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir private machine\n or eir private account on a shared machine (but not the shared machine\n itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405800,'rcs','00000001.00000235',1564,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',1175027547,'Rule 1564/13 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The following are subject to Appeal:\n\n a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.\n b) The grant or denial of a Motion.\n c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order.\n d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required\n judicial duty.\n\n A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:\n\n i) Three Players Appeal it.\n ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em.\n iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a\n Crime.\n\n A single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order)\n may only be appealed once.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player\n becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall announce the event.\n\n[CFJ 1273: dismissal of a CFJ is subject to Appeal.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405801,'rcs','00000001.00000236',2105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1175027568,'Rule 2105/2 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER REEF\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\\n / | | | <- BRISBANE\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ |\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE ->\n \\ __/ \\_ / /\n PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | /\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405802,'rcs','00000001.00000237',106,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1175136695,'Rule 106/3 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker.\n\n The default adoption index of a proposal is one. Before the\n Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its\n adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption\n Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405803,'rcs','00000001.00000238',1030,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1175270057,'Rule 1030/5 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\nCFJ 1104 (Judged TRUE, Sep. 9 1998): \"The presence in a Rule of\n deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does\n not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only\n how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does\n arise.\"\n\n[CFJs 1114 and 1115 (both Judged Feb. 5 1999): This Rule is to be\n applied to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just\n because a Rule is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict\n with a Rule of higher precedence does not mean that the Rule is\n nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405804,'rcs','00000001.00000239',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1175283167,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 1275: An entity is a Player if the Rules cannot distinguish that\n entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1622, CFJ 1623: \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which\n includes partnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1614: Being any type of foodstuff has no relation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased as a request.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405805,'rcs','00000001.00000239',955,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1175283167,'Rule 955/10 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, e shall\n determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJ 1605, CFJ 1608: Unanimity exceeds finite numerical adoption indices.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405806,'rcs','00000001.00000240',1922,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1175389905,'Rule 1922/12 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game. The\n Herald\'s report shall record how the player won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405807,'rcs','00000001.00000241',1922,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1175401841,'Rule 1922/12 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game. The\n Herald\'s report shall record how the player won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405808,'rcs','00000001.00000242',1727,'Amended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1175486815,'Rule 1727/16 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known\n unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,\n until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405809,'rcs','00000001.00000243',1728,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1175569239,'Rule 1728/12 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and\n only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N\n Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase\n \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1 Objection\",\n and the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\".\n\n A player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an\n unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform\n a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and\n only if:\n\n (a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the\n announcement of intent to perform the action;\n\n (b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N\n Objections, at least four days have passed since the\n announcement made under (a) of this rule;\n\n (c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or\n\n (1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by\n virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and\n\n (2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n holder of that position when e attempts to perform the\n action;\n\n (d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the\n action dependently;\n\n (e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of\n this rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections,\n fewer than N players have publicly posted objections\n (and not publicly retracted eir objections) to the\n performance of the action; or\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at\n least N players other than the player who made the\n announcement under (a) of this rule have publicly\n posted support for the performance of the action;\n\n (f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies\n whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections\n or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit\n the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not\n permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (g) e announces that e performs the described action.\n\n A dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n A rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may\n restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that\n specific action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007'),(405810,'rcs','00000001.00000243',1891,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007','Legislative Orders','Legislative Orders',1175569239,'Rule 1891/1 (Power=1)\nLegislative Orders\n\n (a) A Proposal may contain one or more Orders.\n\n (b) The effect of adopting a Proposal which contains Orders is\n to execute those Orders. Such Orders are known as\n Legislative Orders, and are executed by that Proposal as\n of the date of the proclamation of the Proposal\'s adoption.\n\n (c) Legislative Orders may not be stayed, vacated, or amended\n except:\n (1) by a subsequent Legislative Order;\n (2) by a Judicial Order issued only after a judicial finding\n that the Proposal containing the Legislative Order was not\n adopted, was barred from taking effect, or was invalid; or\n (3) by the Clerk of the Courts, but only for the purpose of\n staying such an Order during the pendency of a dispute\n which might reasonably lead to a judicial finding of the\n sort mentioned in subdivision (c)(2) of this Rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007'),(405811,'rcs','00000001.00000244',789,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4917 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','Orders to Annotate Rules','Orders to Annotate Rules',1175569348,'Rule 789/7 (Power=1)\nOrders to Annotate Rules\n\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE\n or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the\n Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If the\n CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement\n of the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation\n shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such an\n annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule\n is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the\n original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The\n Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without\n Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way\n except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n[CFJ 684: Such an Order applies not only during Judging, but\n also in the everyday interpretation of the Rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 789 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2684, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4917 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405812,'rcs','00000001.00000245',106,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1175569526,'Rule 106/4 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1\n is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007'),(405813,'rcs','00000001.00000246',889,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1175569593,'Rule 889/14 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405814,'rcs','00000001.00000248',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1175864617,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594: Players can be deregistered due to this rule even though the\n office of Registrar has been abolished.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405815,'rcs','00000001.00000249',591,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002','Legal Judgements','Legal Judgements',1176229131,'Rule 591/18 (Power=1)\nLegal Judgements\n\n The Judge of a CFJ Judges it by submitting eir Judgement to the\n Clerk of the Courts. \"Decision\", \"Finding\", and \"Response\" are\n unambiguous synonyms for \"Judgement\".\n\n For a Trial Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the following:\n TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of\n the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence,\n or other material included with the Judgement.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002'),(405816,'rcs','00000001.00000250',911,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1176237524,'Rule 911/14 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A\n Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the\n Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n\n An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to\n replace em.\n\n The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405817,'rcs','00000001.00000251',105,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1176291388,'Rule 105/1 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n A proposal generally can, as part of its effect:\n\n (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign it a number, which must be greater than any number\n previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify\n the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the\n proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power\n equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the\n power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified,\n the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit.\n\n (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can\n modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater\n than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have\n power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification\n specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and\n without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in\n the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity\n for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.\n\n (c) Repeal a rule. A Proposal can repeal a rule with power no\n greater than its own. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases\n to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n enacted, modified, or repealed.\n\nCFJ 1626: A rule cannot directly enact, modify, or repeal a rule\n(including itself), unless it takes precedence over the last paragraph\nof Rule 105.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007'),(405818,'rcs','00000001.00000252',879,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Quorum','Quorum',1176346557,'Rule 879/22 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n The quorum for an Agoran decision is one third the number of\n eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless\n there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the\n quorum level is the number of eligible voters).\n\nCFJ 1562 (Judged TRUE, 6 May 2005): \"A cancelled vote on a Proposal\n does not count towards quorum.\"\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405819,'rcs','00000001.00000253',1504,'Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Sentencing Orders','Sentencing Orders',1176349342,'Rule 1504/9 (Power=1)\nSentencing Orders\n\n Upon a finding in a Civil CFJ that the defendant has broken one\n or more Rules, the Trial Judge must execute exactly one of the\n following types of sentencing orders as punitive damages:\n\n (1) Without Objection and with 1 Support, an order the defendant\n to make a formal apology;\n\n (2) Without 2 Objections and with 2 Supporters, an order for the\n defendant to perform a specified service for the benefit of the\n Agoran community proportionate to the seriousness of the breach;\n\n (3) An order for the Herald to place the defendant in the Chokey\n for a number of months equal to the power of the highest\n powered Rule that was broken;\n\n (4) If and only if the trial judge finds the defendant to have\n acted willfully in breaking the rules, an order for the Herald\n to place the defendant in the Chokey for twice number of months\n equal to the power of the highest-powered Rule that was broken;\n\n (5) If and only if the judge finds the defendant to have acted\n egregiously, maliciously, or with a consistent pattern of\n abuse, with Agoran Consent, an order for the Registrar to\n deregister the defendant in disgrace (make em lawless). An\n order to be made lawless is automatically appealed upon its\n initial execution.\n\n These punishments are considered ranked with \"worse\" punishments\n being later in the list.\n\n If an attempted sentencing order does not receive the proper\n support or receives too many objections, the trial judge must\n execute another type of sentencing order.\n\n No other punitive damages may be assessed for Rules violations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405820,'rcs','00000001.00000254',2009,'Created by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001','Elder Oligarchs','Elder Oligarchs',1176371667,'Rule 2009/0 (Power=2)\nElder Oligarchs\n\n (a) Upon the creation of this Rule, all Players who were Low,\n Middle, or High Oligarchs when the Proposal creating this\n Rule was adopted become Oligarchs. Each of these Players is\n an Elder Oligarch until e ceases to be an Oligarch or until\n e has been an Elder Oligarch for 3 months.\n\n (b) The Rulekeepor may repeal this Rule Without Objection if\n there are no Elder Oligarchs.\n\n[CFJ 1499, CFJ 1624: An officer cannot repeal a rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001'),(405821,'rcs','00000001.00000254',2037,'Created by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003','Orange Alert','Orange Alert',1176371667,'Rule 2037/0 (Power=1)\nOrange Alert\n\n If a Player has no listed e-mail address, then the address used\n to send eir next public message becomes listed.\n\n If each Player has at least one listed address, then the\n Registrar may repeal this Rule by announcing that e does so.\n\n[CFJ 1499, CFJ 1624: An officer cannot repeal a rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003'),(405822,'rcs','00000001.00000255',208,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1176768671,'Rule 208/3 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is\n authorized to resolve that decision, and does so by publishing a\n valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved,\n indicating the option selected by Agora. To be valid, this\n notice must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It clearly identifies the options available.\n\n (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision shall have at most one vote collector at a\n time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message\n initiating the decision, and can only be changed as specified by\n other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405823,'rcs','00000001.00000259',2105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1177378105,'Rule 2105/2 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER REEF\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\\n / | | | <- BRISBANE\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ |\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / LORD HOWE ->\n \\ __/ \\_ / /\n PERTH -> | _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <- WOLLONGONG\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | /\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405824,'rcs','00000001.00000259',2129,'Created by Proposal 4879 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Dishonor Rolls','Dishonor Rolls',1177378105,'Rule 2129/0 (Power=1)\nDishonor Rolls\n\n When the Herald is ordered to place someone in the Chokey, e\n shall publically award em the patent title \"In the Chokey\".\n\n This title shall be automatically revoked after a length of time\n indicated by the sentencing order, and the Herald shall announce\n the revokation. If a sentencing order is executed against a\n defendant who already holds this title, the length of time of\n the new sentencing order shall be added to the time left on any\n previous ones.\n\n A person is considered to be In Disgrace while in the Chokey,\n between the execution and satisfaction of any sentencing orders\n binding em, or if deregistered for lawlessness. A person who\n leaves the game in disgrace shall be awarded the Patent Title\n Fugitive by the Herald. A Player may revoke the title Fugitive\n from emself as long as e is no longer in Disgrace. A non-player\n may have this title revoked by Agoran Consent.\n\n The rules may further specify actions prohibited to persons in\n particular types of disgrace.\n\n The Herald is encouraged to publish lists of those in disgrace\n separate from patent titles of honor, to indicate the disgrace.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4879 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405825,'rcs','00000001.00000260',2134,'Created by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007','Win by Voting Power','Win by Voting Power',1177901550,'Rule 2134/0 (Power=1)\nWin by Voting Power\n\n If a single player has a voting power on ordinary proposals\n equal to or greater than the total voting power on ordinary\n proposals of all other players combined, that player wins the\n game upon any player announcing the fact.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007'),(405826,'rcs','00000001.00000261',2135,'Created by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Herald to Advertise','Herald to Advertise',1177901866,'Rule 2135/0 (Power=1)\nHerald to Advertise\n\n Every month the Herald shall update the page about Agora on the\n NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is operational.\n This page, when updated, is to include a list of the current\n players. In updating the page the Herald shall ensure that\n information that is currently incorrect is either corrected or\n removed, and that all links on the page point to extant pages\n that are correctly described. The Herald may add new correct\n information to the page at eir discretion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405827,'rcs','00000001.00000262',2132,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4933 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Excess CFJs','Excess CFJs',1177902025,'Rule 2132/1 (Power=1)\nExcess CFJs\n\n A CFJ submitted by a person who has previously submitted five\n or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ is an\n Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts can, by announcement,\n Refuse an Excess CFJ that has not had any judge assigned to it.\n Refusal of an Excess CFJ causes it to cease to be a CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4933 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405828,'rcs','00000001.00000263',2136,'Created by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Contests','Contests',1177902290,'Rule 2136/0 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score. When a player\n registers, eir score is set to zero.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month\n to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a\n different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405829,'rcs','00000001.00000264',1564,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4937 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',1177902399,'Rule 1564/14 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The following are subject to Appeal:\n\n a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.\n b) The grant or denial of a Motion.\n c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order.\n d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required\n judicial duty.\n\n A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:\n\n i) Three Players Appeal it.\n ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em.\n iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a\n Crime.\n\n A single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order)\n may only be appealed once.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player\n becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall announce the event.\n\n An Appeal may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other\n related material; the Board of Appeals is encouraged, but not\n required, to take notice of these things.\n\n[CFJ 1273: dismissal of a CFJ is subject to Appeal.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4937 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405830,'rcs','00000001.00000265',1023,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1177902578,'Rule 1023/18 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The term \"number\" shall mean \"real number\".\n\n (b) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" shall mean \"within seven\n days\".\n\n (c) The term \"random\" shall mean a choice drawn with a process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n (d) The term \"paragraph\" shall mean a subset of text determined\n as follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Units are considered in a tree hierarchy, interpreting\n the original body of text as a depth-first search. The\n root is empty, the unbulleted units are its children,\n and the bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are\n its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to\n nested levels of the tree).\n\n (4) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (e) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405831,'rcs','00000001.00000266',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1177904400,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405832,'rcs','00000001.00000266',478,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Fora','Fora',1177904400,'Rule 478/17 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the recipient\'s\n normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir private machine\n or eir private account on a shared machine (but not the shared machine\n itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405833,'rcs','00000001.00000266',2138,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1177904400,'Rule 2138/0 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The Director of Personnel\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405834,'rcs','00000001.00000266',1377,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Herald','The Herald',1177904400,'Rule 1377/21 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of the History of Agora and its players.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n b) A list of one or more Threats, including Bears.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405835,'rcs','00000001.00000266',1450,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1177904400,'Rule 1450/6 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n The following sets of positions are mutually exclusive:\n\n a) Promotor and Assessor\n b) Speaker and Clerk of the Courts\n\n A player holding two or more positions within one of these sets\n is removed from all but one of them. If one of them is the\n Speakership, then e retains it; otherwise, e retains the\n position e came to hold most recently.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all rules governing offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405836,'rcs','00000001.00000266',2137,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1177904400,'Rule 2137/0 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n The Assessor\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals.\n b) Each player\'s voting credits.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405837,'rcs','00000001.00000266',106,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1177904400,'Rule 106/5 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1\n is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405838,'rcs','00000001.00000267',1688,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Power','Power',1177905532,'Rule 1688/3 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405839,'rcs','00000001.00000267',2140,'Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Power Controls Mutability','Power Controls Mutability',1177905532,'Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)\nPower Controls Mutability\n\n No entity with power below the power of this rule can\n\n (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.\n\n (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than\n its own.\n\n (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with\n power greater than its own. A \"substantive\" aspect of\n an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument\'s\n operation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405840,'rcs','00000001.00000267',2141,'Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1177905532,'Rule 2141/0 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Every rule shall have a number for identification. If a rule\n ever does not have an identifying number, the Rulekeepor shall\n assign a number to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n The number assigned must be a natural number greater than any\n number previously assigned to a rule. Once properly assigned,\n a rule\'s number cannot be changed.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, number, and title of a rule are all substantive\n aspects of the rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405841,'rcs','00000001.00000267',105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1177905532,'Rule 105/2 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument;\n any attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405842,'rcs','00000001.00000268',106,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1177981242,'Rule 106/5 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1\n is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1639 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two separate\namendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the attempted\namendments is not possible and the other is then the possible amendment\ndoes in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly requires a different\nresolution.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405843,'rcs','00000001.00000268',105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1177981242,'Rule 105/2 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument;\n any attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\", where XXX\nspecifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this constitutes\ntwo separate attempts at rule changes, even though both attempt to amend\nthe same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", where both\nXXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two separate attempts\nat rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY specify text\nchanges, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even though\nit is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY specify\ntext changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even\nthough it is specified in two parts.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405844,'rcs','00000001.00000269',105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1178080856,'Rule 105/2 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument;\n any attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\", where XXX\nspecifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this constitutes\ntwo separate attempts at rule changes, even though both attempt to amend\nthe same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", where both\nXXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two separate attempts\nat rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY specify text\nchanges, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even though\nit is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY specify\ntext changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even\nthough it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single rule\namendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but the\nother is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405845,'rcs','00000001.00000270',1006,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Offices','Offices',1178081599,'Rule 1006/13 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office. The Herald\'s Report shall list the holder of each office,\n and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to\n change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the\n change if consent is acheived.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405846,'rcs','00000001.00000271',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1178203972,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\nCFJ 1103 (Judged TRUE, Aug. 21 1998): \"In the case of conflict\n between Rules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer\n to the lower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes\n precedence over Rule 1482.\"\n\n[CFJ 858: If a low-Power (low-MI at the time of Judgement of CFJ 858)\n Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule of higher Power to\n mean something other than its ordinary English meaning, that\n may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does must be\n decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405847,'rcs','00000001.00000272',2126,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1178204127,'Rule 2126/4 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the\n recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and\n cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this\n rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero.\n\n When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the\n integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each\n co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)\n who held that office for the majority of that month gains two\n VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has\n performed poorly in eir duties.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who\n is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period,\n loses one VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007'),(405848,'rcs','00000001.00000273',101,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1178204368,'Rule 101/6 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825: Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405849,'rcs','00000001.00000273',103,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Always a Speaker','Always a Speaker',1178204368,'Rule 103/2 (Power=3)\nAlways a Speaker\n\n There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker.\n No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never\n be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then\n the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes\n the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405850,'rcs','00000001.00000274',2105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','The Map of Agora','The Map of Agora',1178204552,'Rule 2105/3 (Power=1)\nThe Map of Agora\n\n ____ _ /|\n DARWIN -> \\_ |/ | / \\\n __/ / | |\n <- DSV / / | \\\n _ \\ \\_ | \\\n MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER\n _ _/ | \\_/\\_/ \\ REEF\n / \\\\ <- SHARK BAY | |\n / | | \\ <- TOWNSVILLE\n ___/ | | \\_\n __/ | | .___o ) |\n / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR\'S MIRE\n / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\\\n | | | |_\n | | | EMERALD -> \\\n \\ |__________=_____, \\ BRISBANE\n / | | | <-\'\n \\ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\\\n \\ | |_______/ \\/ | LORD\n | __/\\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE ->\n \\ PERTH __/ \\_ / /\n | <-\' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-.\n / _/ \\/ \\ / / | / WOLLONGONG\n |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA\n \\_/ \\ | \\_ _|\n __ __ | | \\__/\n __ \\ / __ \\___=_ ___|\n / \\ | / \\ MANUBOURNE -> \\/\n \\|/\n _,.---v---._ /\\__\n /\\__/\\ / \\ | |\n \\_ _/ / \\ | /\n \\ \\_| @ __| \\_/ <- HOBART\n \\ \\_\n \\ ,__/ /\n ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405851,'rcs','00000001.00000275',2126,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1178536917,'Rule 2126/5 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the\n recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and\n cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this\n rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir\n voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.\n\n When a proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs equal to the\n integer portion of the proposal\'s adoption index, and each\n co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)\n who held that office for the majority of that month gains two\n VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has\n performed poorly in eir duties.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who\n is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period,\n loses one VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007'),(405852,'rcs','00000001.00000276',2142,'Created by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1178537119,'Rule 2142/0 (Power=1.1)\nSupport Democracy\n\n Any player may change an Ordinary proposal\'s Adoption Index to\n 1.1 during its voting period With 3 Supporters.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007'),(405853,'rcs','00000001.00000277',1006,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007','Offices','Offices',1178537519,'Rule 1006/14 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to\n change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the\n change if consent is acheived.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007'),(405854,'rcs','00000001.00000277',2138,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1178537519,'Rule 2138/1 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007'),(405855,'rcs','00000001.00000279',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1178867728,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594: Players can be deregistered due to this rule even if there\nis no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405856,'rcs','00000001.00000280',101,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1178938756,'Rule 101/6 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825: Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1132, Judged May 18, 1999: A Player failing to perform a duty\n required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation\n of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for\n the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1627 (called 29 April 2007): The possibility of arbitrary refusal\nof CFJs, preventing them being judged, does not infringe the right to\ninvoke judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405857,'rcs','00000001.00000280',105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1178938756,'Rule 105/2 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument;\n any attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\n Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given identify\ndifferent rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted\nrule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\", where XXX\nspecifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this constitutes\ntwo separate attempts at rule changes, even though both attempt to amend\nthe same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", where both\nXXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two separate attempts\nat rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY specify text\nchanges, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even though\nit is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words\n\"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY specify\ntext changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even\nthough it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single rule\namendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but the\nother is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405858,'rcs','00000001.00000280',478,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Fora','Fora',1178938756,'Rule 478/17 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the recipient\'s\n normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir private machine\n or eir private account on a shared machine (but not the shared machine\n itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405859,'rcs','00000001.00000280',107,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1178938756,'Rule 107/3 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The information required in the notice\nneed not be explicit.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405860,'rcs','00000001.00000281',107,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1179189296,'Rule 107/3 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The information required in the notice\nneed not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1652: The set of eligible voters on an Agoran decision can change\nduring its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405861,'rcs','00000001.00000281',683,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1179189296,'Rule 683/12 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the\n voting period for the decision.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609: To \"clearly identif[y] the matter to be decided\" does not\n necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJ 1653: item (a) in rule 683 does not require that for a ballot to\nbe valid its submitter must be an eligible voter at the time that the\nballot is submitted.]\n\n[CFJ 1654: Item (a) in rule 683 requires that for a ballot to be valid\nits submitter must be an eligible voter at the time that that the ballot\'s\nvalidity is determined.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405862,'rcs','00000001.00000282',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1179198381,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 1275: An entity is a Player if the Rules cannot distinguish that\n entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1622, CFJ 1623: \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which\n includes partnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1614: Being any type of foodstuff has no relation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased in the manner stipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405863,'rcs','00000001.00000283',107,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1179496803,'Rule 107/3 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The information required in the notice\nneed not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of the\nclass of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable public\nagreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652: The set of eligible voters on an Agoran decision can change\nduring its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405864,'rcs','00000001.00000284',478,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Fora','Fora',1179572942,'Rule 478/17 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\n all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time\n at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the recipient\'s\n normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir private machine\n or eir private account on a shared machine (but not the shared machine\n itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112, Judged TRUE Jan. 21 1999: In order to submit a Proposal,\n in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a\n collection of text \'with the clear indication that that text is\n intended to become a Proposal\' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public\n Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be\n received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or \"announcing\"\nis accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s technical domain\nof control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\" headers.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405865,'rcs','00000001.00000285',2143,'Created by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007','Official Reports','Official Reports',1179928699,'Rule 2143/0 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n For each office, the rules may designate certain information\n to be part of the corresponding officer\'s weekly report or\n monthly report. Any information designated to be part of the\n officer\'s report without specifying which report shall be part\n of the weekly report. If no information is designated to be\n part of the weekly (or monthly) report, then that office has\n no weekly (or, respectively, monthly) report. Each officer\'s\n report is an official report.\n\n The holder of an office for which there is an officer\'s\n report is obliged to maintain all information in the report.\n E is obliged to publish the weekly report, if there is one, at\n least once each week, and the monthly report, if there is one,\n at least once each month.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007'),(405866,'rcs','00000001.00000286',2144,'Created by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1179929003,'Rule 2144/0 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another\n registered partnership, then it is prohibited from registering.\n\n If a registered partnership\'s membership changes such that it\n contains exactly the same members as another registered\n partnership, then it is deregistered.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007'),(405867,'rcs','00000001.00000287',1950,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007','Voting Limits','Voting Limits',1179929142,'Rule 1950/14 (Power=3)\nVoting Limits\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter on a democratic proposal\n is one and cannot be changed except by this rule.\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is\n one if not explicitly modified by other rules.\n\n The voting limit of an eligible voter who is not a natural\n person is always one less than it would otherwise be.\n\n After the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the\n vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by\n an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that\n person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the\n voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all\n subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007'),(405868,'rcs','00000001.00000288',1922,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1179929204,'Rule 1922/13 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game. The\n Herald\'s report shall record how the player won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007'),(405869,'rcs','00000001.00000289',955,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1180065892,'Rule 955/10 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, e shall\n determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJ 1605, CFJ 1608: Unanimity exceeds finite numerical adoption indices.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nis determined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405870,'rcs','00000001.00000289',879,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Quorum','Quorum',1180065892,'Rule 879/22 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n The quorum for an Agoran decision is one third the number of\n eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless\n there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the\n quorum level is the number of eligible voters).\n\nCFJ 1562 (Judged TRUE, 6 May 2005): \"A cancelled vote on a Proposal\n does not count towards quorum.\"\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405871,'rcs','00000001.00000289',1742,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agreements between Players','Agreements between Players',1180065892,'Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)\nAgreements between Players\n\n Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that\n agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A\n Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements each\nconstruct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct identities even\nif the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]'),(405872,'rcs','00000001.00000290',1742,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agreements between Players','Agreements between Players',1180185998,'Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)\nAgreements between Players\n\n Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that\n agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A\n Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements each\nconstruct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct identities even\nif the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405873,'rcs','00000001.00000291',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1180186837,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 1275: An entity is a Player if the Rules cannot distinguish that\n entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1622, CFJ 1623: \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which\n includes partnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJs 1678-1680: For a partnership to be a legal person, it must\nultimately devolve its obligations onto a non-empty set of natural\npersons.]\n\n[CFJ 1614: Being any type of foodstuff has no relation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1263: Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register\n as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it\n is explicitly phrased in the manner stipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405874,'rcs','00000001.00000291',1742,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agreements between Players','Agreements between Players',1180186837,'Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)\nAgreements between Players\n\n Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that\n agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A\n Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements each\nconstruct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct identities even\nif the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405875,'rcs','00000001.00000292',2145,'Created by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007','Partnerships','Partnerships',1180621066,'Rule 2145/0 (Power=1)\nPartnerships\n\n A non-natural person that is created by an Agreement between two\n or more persons is known as a Partnership. A Partnership comes\n into existence with the initiation of the Agreement that creates\n it, and it ceases to exist when that Agreement is terminated.\n The persons who are party to the Agreement may change during the\n course of that Agreement (if the Agreement allows for it)\n without disrupting the existence of the Partnership as a person\n as long as that Agreement remains in effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007'),(405876,'rcs','00000001.00000293',2124,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007','Agoran Consent','Agoran Consent',1180621159,'Rule 2124/3 (Power=1)\nAgoran Consent\n\n An entity that may perform an action with Agoran Consent can do\n so by announcement if all of the following are true:\n\n (a) e has published eir intent to perform the action,\n unambiguously describing the action to be performed, at\n least four days and no more than fourteen days before\n attempting to perform the action;\n\n (b) at least one other player has announced (and not withdrawn)\n support for the intended action since intent was published;\n and\n\n (c) more other players have announced (and not withdrawn)\n support than have announced (and not withdrawn) objections\n to the action since the intent was published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007'),(405877,'rcs','00000001.00000294',2146,'Created by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007','Indices','Indices',1180621326,'Rule 2146/0 (Power=2)\nIndices\n\n Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a\n total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum\n element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called\n positive infinity or unanimity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007'),(405878,'rcs','00000001.00000295',1006,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007','Offices','Offices',1180621462,'Rule 1006/15 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007'),(405879,'rcs','00000001.00000296',1728,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1180621604,'Rule 1728/13 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and\n only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N\n Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase\n \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1 Objection\",\n and the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\".\n\n A player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an\n unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform\n a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and\n only if:\n\n (a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the\n announcement of intent to perform the action;\n\n (b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N\n Objections, at least four days have passed since the\n announcement made under (a) of this rule;\n\n (c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or\n\n (1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by\n virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and\n\n (2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n holder of that position when e attempts to perform the\n action;\n\n (d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the\n action dependently;\n\n (e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of\n this rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections,\n fewer than N players who are natural persons have\n publicly posted objections (and not publicly retracted\n eir objections) to the performance of the action; or\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at\n least N players who are natural persons other than the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule have publicly posted support for the performance\n of the action;\n\n (f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies\n whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections\n or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit\n the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not\n permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (g) e announces that e performs the described action.\n\n A dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n A rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may\n restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that\n specific action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007'),(405880,'rcs','00000001.00000297',101,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1180634638,'Rule 101/6 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a\n judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or\n judicial order binding em.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825: Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1627 (called 29 April 2007): The possibility of arbitrary refusal\nof CFJs, preventing them being judged, does not infringe the right to\ninvoke judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405881,'rcs','00000001.00000297',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1180634638,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\nCFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.\n\n[CFJ 858: If a low-Power [low-MI at the time of Judgement of CFJ 858]\nRule attempts to define a term used in a Rule of higher Power to mean\nsomething other than its ordinary English meaning, that may or may not\nconstitute a conflict; whether it does must be decided on a\ncase-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405882,'rcs','00000001.00000297',1030,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1180634638,'Rule 1030/5 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\nCFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405883,'rcs','00000001.00000297',105,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1180634638,'Rule 105/2 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument;\n any attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\nChange.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007'),(405884,'rcs','00000001.00000297',104,'Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995','First Speaker','First Speaker',1180634638,'Rule 104/0 (Power=3)\nFirst Speaker\n\n The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.\n\n[CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael\nNorrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present\ntime.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (405885,'rcs','00000001.00000297',869,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1180634638,'Rule 869/17 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJs 1622 (called 26 February 2007) and 1623 (called 27 February\n2007): \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\npartnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJs 1678-1680 (called 22 May 2007): For a partnership to be a legal\nperson, it must ultimately devolve its obligations onto a non-empty\nset of natural persons.]\n\n[CFJ 1614 (called 2 February 2007): Being any type of foodstuff has no\nrelation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005'),(405886,'rcs','00000001.00000297',1789,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005','Cantus Cygneus','Cantus Cygneus',1180634638,'Rule 1789/3 (Power=1)\nCantus Cygneus\n\n Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously\n by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part\n of it, e may submit a document to the Clerk of the Courts,\n clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and\n expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so\n badly.\n\n As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall publish this document along with a Writ of\n Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player\n to be deregistered and instructing the Registrar to note the\n method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar\n Reports, as long as the Player remains deregistered.\n\n The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and\n the notation in the Registrar\'s Report will ensure that,\n henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of\n FAGE.\n\n[CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due\nto this rule even if there is no Registrar.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005'),(405887,'rcs','00000001.00000297',478,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Fora','Fora',1180634638,'Rule 478/17 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. A player performs an action \"by private message\"\n to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the\n specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\nall Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time at\nwhich the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the\nrecipient\'s normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir\nprivate machine or eir private account on a shared machine (but not\nthe shared machine itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405888,'rcs','00000001.00000297',754,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1180634638,'Rule 754/6 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted\n as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language\n synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall\n be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those\n contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language\n meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405889,'rcs','00000001.00000297',107,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1180634638,'Rule 107/3 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain\n the following information:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The information required in the notice\nneed not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405890,'rcs','00000001.00000297',683,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1180634638,'Rule 683/12 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the\n voting period for the decision.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\n[CFJ 1653 (called 6 May 2007): item (a) in rule 683 does not require\nthat for a ballot to be valid its submitter must be an eligible voter\nat the time that the ballot is submitted.]\n\n[CFJ 1654 (called 6 May 2007): Item (a) in rule 683 requires that for\na ballot to be valid its submitter must be an eligible voter at the\ntime that that the ballot\'s validity is determined.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405891,'rcs','00000001.00000297',955,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1180634638,'Rule 955/10 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was\n selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the\n following steps in order after the voting period has ended.\n\n (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to\n invalidate, and no others.\n\n (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted\n ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the\n quorum and there is more than one available option, then the\n option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the\n decision achieved quorum.\n\n (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, e shall\n determine the voting index as follows:\n\n (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of\n AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but\n\n (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is\n zero; otherwise,\n\n (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to\n the strength of AGAINST.\n\n If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the\n adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was\n achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED.\n Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.\n\n[CFJs 1605 (called 11 January 2007) and 1608 (called 12 January 2007):\nUnanimity exceeds finite numerical adoption indices.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405892,'rcs','00000001.00000297',879,'Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Quorum','Quorum',1180634638,'Rule 879/22 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n The quorum for an Agoran decision is one third the number of\n eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless\n there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the\n quorum level is the number of eligible voters).\n\nCFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405893,'rcs','00000001.00000297',106,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1180634638,'Rule 106/5 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1\n is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405894,'rcs','00000001.00000297',2024,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1180634638,'Rule 2024/6 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement deemed to be\n sufficiently similar that they should have a single judge.\n\n Linkage is transitive. When a set of one or more linked CFJs\n change jurisdiction, they remain linked to each other, but\n become unlinked from any other CFJs; they may become linked\n to one or more CFJs within the new jurisdiction.\n\n Multiple CFJs, submitted in a single message and clearly\n labelled as Linked CFJs, become linked. The players (if any)\n barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only\n players e may bar from judging the others.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall not assign judges directly to the\n members of a set of Linked CFJs, but shall assign a judge to the\n set, as if it was a single CFJ. The judge must be eligible to\n judge each member of the set, and is simultaneously assigned\n as judge of each member of the set.\n\n The judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n A trial judge may remand one or more linked CFJs to the Clerk of\n the Courts by announcement. E ceases to be their judge.\n\n A trial judge may transfer one or more of eir CFJs to a second\n trial judge by announcement (identifying one of the second judge\'s\n CFJs), provided that the second judge consents, and is eligible to\n judge all of them. The transferred CFJs become linked to the\n second judge\'s CFJ (and any others to which it is already linked).\n\n[CFJ 1602 (called 10 January 2007): A set of Linked CFJs is an entity\ndistinct from the individual CFJs from which it is composed.]\n\n[CFJ 1601 (called 10 January 2007): When a Judge is to be assigned to\na set of Linked CFJs as required by Rule 2024, references in Rule 698\nto \"that CFJ\" or \"that increasingly annoying CFJ\" refer to individual\nCFJs, not to the set of CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4895 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007'),(405895,'rcs','00000001.00000297',1868,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1180634638,'Rule 1868/4 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding\n judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor\n denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.\n\n As soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no\n Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a\n Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial\n Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e\n is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.\n\n Other rules may explicitly delay the timing requirement of\n making assignments, for example with respect to providing the\n Defendant with response time in a Civil CFJ.\n\nCFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select a\nJudge who is eligible at the time that the Judge is selected,\nregardless of whether that Player was eligible at the time that the\nCFJ was actually called for or when the identity of that Player is\nannounced.\n\n[CFJ 1187: A Judge is considered to be assigned to Judge a particular\nCFJ at the time that the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of\nthe Judge, and no sooner.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405896,'rcs','00000001.00000297',698,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Always an Eligible Judge','Always an Eligible Judge',1180634638,'Rule 698/15 (Power=1)\nAlways an Eligible Judge\n\n (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for\n Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em\n ineligible.\n\n (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge,\n but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into\n account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then:\n\n (1) all non-barred players become eligible to judge that\n CFJ; then\n\n (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all\n barred players, other than the caller emself, become\n eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; then\n\n (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then\n don\'t panic. Somebody\'s bound to register someday; let\n em deal with it.\n\n (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who\n is and is not eligible to judge CFJs.\n\n[CFJ 1600 (called 10 January 2007): In Rule 698 the phrase \"all barred\nplayers\" means all Players that are Barred from Judging the\nincreasingly annoying CFJ.]\n\n[CFJ 1601 (called 10 January 2007): When a Judge is to be assigned to\na set of Linked CFJs as required by Rule 2024, references in Rule 698\nto \"that CFJ\" or \"that increasingly annoying CFJ\" refer to individual\nCFJs, not to the set of CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 482 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 698 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1385, Jan. 17 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 26 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4835 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405897,'rcs','00000001.00000297',217,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules',1180634638,'Rule 217/5 (Power=3)\nJudgements Must Accord with the Rules\n\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common\n sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game\n before applying other standards.\n\n When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement\n contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the\n truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was\n issued.\n\n[CFJ 897: The requirements in Rule 217 on Judgements apply to the\ndeterminations of the members of a Board of Appeal, as well as to the\nJudgements of Judges.]\n\n[CFJ 1139: Judgements need not necessarily accord with the reasoning\nand arguments of Judges or Justices given in past CFJs.]\n\n[CFJ 1219: A mistaken Judgement (ie one that does not accord with the\nRules) is still a Judgement, as long as the technical requirements on\nthe delivery of the Judgement have been met.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405898,'rcs','00000001.00000297',789,'Amended(7) by Proposal 4917 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','Orders to Annotate Rules','Orders to Annotate Rules',1180634638,'Rule 789/7 (Power=1)\nOrders to Annotate Rules\n\n The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule\n should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE\n or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the\n Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If the\n CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement\n of the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation\n shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such an\n annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule.\n\n The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule\n is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the\n original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The\n Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without\n Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way\n except as specified in this Rule.\n\n If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent,\n e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of\n Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation.\n If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order\n the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to\n remove the annotation in question.\n\n[CFJ 684: Such an Order applies not only during Judging, but also in\nthe everyday interpretation of the Rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 789 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1396, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2684, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), Jul. 22 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4917 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405899,'rcs','00000001.00000297',1564,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4937 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',1180634638,'Rule 1564/14 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The following are subject to Appeal:\n\n a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.\n b) The grant or denial of a Motion.\n c) The execution of a Judicial or Sentencing Order.\n d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required\n judicial duty.\n\n A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:\n\n i) Three Players Appeal it.\n ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial or Sentencing Order binding em.\n iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a\n Crime.\n\n A single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order)\n may only be appealed once.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player\n becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall announce the event.\n\n An Appeal may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other\n related material; the Board of Appeals is encouraged, but not\n required, to take notice of these things.\n\n[CFJ 1273 (called 13 February 2001): dismissal of a CFJ is subject to\nAppeal.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4937 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405900,'rcs','00000001.00000297',1742,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Agreements between Players','Agreements between Players',1180634638,'Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)\nAgreements between Players\n\n Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that\n agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A\n Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements\neach construct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct\nidentities even if the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405901,'rcs','00000001.00000298',1871,'Amended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007','Turns for All','Turns for All',1180965004,'Rule 1871/10 (Power=1)\nTurns for All\n\n When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes\n turned. A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if\n e was turned when it was called.\n\n When a player registers, e becomes turned.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) turn a\n player. E is encouraged to do this only if e expects the\n player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all\n players become unturned. The Clerk of the Courts shall only do\n so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have no players\n eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has at least\n one player ineligible solely to being turned; e shall list all\n CFJs in the first set, and at least one (and at least one such\n player for it) in the second. However, failing to meet these\n requirements does not deprive the Notice of effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007'),(405902,'rcs','00000001.00000299',2136,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007','Contests','Contests',1180965117,'Rule 2136/1 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score. When a player\n registers, eir score is set to zero.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month\n to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a\n different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If\n this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:\n\n 1. The announcing player wins the game.\n 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007'),(405903,'rcs','00000001.00000300',2126,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1180965200,'Rule 2126/6 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. The Promotor is the\n recordkeepor of VCs. VCs are not any form of property and\n cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as described in this\n rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir\n voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.\n\n When an Ordinary proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs\n equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption\n index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)\n who held that office for the majority of that month gains two\n VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has\n performed poorly in eir duties.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who\n is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period,\n loses one VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007'),(405904,'rcs','00000001.00000301',107,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1180965769,'Rule 107/4 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The information required in the notice\nneed not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007'),(405905,'rcs','00000001.00000301',683,'Amended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1180965769,'Rule 683/13 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007'),(405906,'rcs','00000001.00000301',1950,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007','Voting Limits','Voting Limits',1180965769,'Rule 1950/15 (Power=3)\nVoting Limits\n\n The voting limit of an entity on a democratic proposal is one\n and cannot be changed except by this rule.\n\n The voting limit of an entity on an ordinary proposal is one if\n not explicitly modified by other rules.\n\n The voting limit of an entity who is not a natural person is\n always one less than it would otherwise be.\n\n After the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the\n vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by\n each voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that\n person\'s voting limit on that decision as determined when the\n voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all\n subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007'),(405907,'rcs','00000001.00000301',879,'Amended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007','Quorum','Quorum',1180965769,'Rule 879/23 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up,\n with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which\n quorum is N).\n\nCFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007'),(405908,'rcs','00000001.00000302',2130,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007','Inactivity','Inactivity',1180965830,'Rule 2130/1 (Power=1)\nInactivity\n\n A player may become active or inactive by announcement.\n\n A player may, without objection, make another player inactive.\n\n Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.\n All non-players are inactive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007'),(405909,'rcs','00000001.00000303',2130,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007','Inactivity','Inactivity',1180965934,'Rule 2130/2 (Power=1)\nInactivity\n\n A player may become active or inactive by announcement.\n\n A player may, without objection, make another player inactive.\n\n Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.\n All non-players are inactive.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether\n the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this\n status last changed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007'),(405910,'rcs','00000001.00000304',2130,'Amended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007','Inactivity','Inactivity',1181137573,'Rule 2130/3 (Power=1)\nInactivity\n\n A player may become active or inactive by announcement.\n\n A player may, without objection, make another player inactive.\n\n Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.\n All non-players are inactive.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether\n the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this\n status last changed.\n\n Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.\n All non-players are inactive.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007'),(405911,'rcs','00000001.00000305',2130,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007','Inactivity','Inactivity',1181137641,'Rule 2130/4 (Power=1)\nInactivity\n\n A player may become active or inactive by announcement.\n\n A player may, without objection, make another player inactive.\n\n Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.\n All non-players are inactive.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether\n the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this\n status last changed.\n\n Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.\n All non-players are inactive.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether\n the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this\n status last changed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007'),(405912,'rcs','00000001.00000306',1742,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007','Agreements','Agreements',1181137823,'Rule 1742/5 (Power=1)\nAgreements\n\n Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that\n agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A\n Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements\neach construct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct\nidentities even if the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007'),(405913,'rcs','00000001.00000307',2148,'Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007','Ambassador','Ambassador',1181138355,'Rule 2148/0 (Power=2)\nAmbassador\n\n The Ambassador is an office; Its holder is Agora\'s liaison to\n its Protectorates. The Ambassador\'s report shall include a\n listing of Protectorates as well as a list of recent events\n related to those Protectorates. On a minimum of a monthly basis,\n the Ambassador shall review each Protectorate to ensure it meets\n the requirements of a Protectorate.\n\n The Ambassador may act on behalf of Agora for an action that is\n permitted of Agora in the Protectorate\'s ruleset, with the\n exception of direct changes to that Protectorate\'s ruleset as\n described above. Any Player may, with Agoran consent, require\n that the Ambassador act or not act in a specified fashion in\n relation to a Protectorate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007'),(405914,'rcs','00000001.00000307',2147,'Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007','Protectorates','Protectorates',1181138355,'Rule 2147/0 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the Protectorate).\n\n In order to become a Protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. It\n also must allow Agora unrestricted access to make changes to its\n ruleset. A player of said nomic may then cause that nomic to\n become a Protectorate by announcement to the public forum. A\n nomic that no longer meets these requirements ceases to be a\n Protectorate.\n\n Agora shall treat a Protectorate in a benevolent fashion, making\n changes to that nomic\'s ruleset only for the purpose of\n assisting that nomic in its growth and enabling its longevity.\n Agora may only make changes to a Protectorate\'s ruleset through\n a Proposal with an Adoption Index of 2 or more, although this\n does not prohibit changes made to a Protectorate nomic by one or\n more of its players (or closest equivalent) according to the\n rules of that Protectorate.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007'),(405915,'rcs','00000001.00000308',869,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1181138444,'Rule 869/18 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a natural person\n can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJs 1622 (called 26 February 2007) and 1623 (called 27 February\n2007): \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\npartnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJs 1678-1680 (called 22 May 2007): For a partnership to be a legal\nperson, it must ultimately devolve its obligations onto a non-empty\nset of natural persons.]\n\n[CFJ 1614 (called 2 February 2007): Being any type of foodstuff has no\nrelation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007'),(405916,'rcs','00000001.00000309',2149,'Created by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1181138746,'Rule 2149/0 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n Players are prohibited from deliberately or recklessly making\n false statements in any public message. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007'),(405917,'rcs','00000001.00000310',1871,'Amended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1181138930,'Rule 1871/11 (Power=1)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Each player is either standing, sitting, or lying down.\n\n A player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice\n versa, by announcement.\n\n When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e changes to\n sitting. A player is ineligible to become Trial Judge of a CFJ\n if e is not standing.\n\n When a player registers, e is lying down.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) change a\n player to lying down. E is encouraged to do this only if e\n expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all\n sitting players change to standing. The Clerk of the Courts\n shall only do so when all open CFJs without a Trial Judge have\n no players eligible to be assigned, and at least one of them has\n at least one player ineligible solely to not standing; e shall\n list all CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the second\n (noting at least one of the relevant players). However, failing\n to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice of\n effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007'),(405918,'rcs','00000001.00000311',879,'Amended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007','Quorum','Quorum',1181139184,'Rule 879/24 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up,\n with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which\n quorum is N).\n\n Voters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered\n eligible for the purposes of this rule.\n\nCFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007'),(405919,'rcs','00000001.00000312',2138,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1181279320,'Rule 2138/1 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007'),(405920,'rcs','00000001.00000313',869,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1181280961,'Rule 869/18 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a natural person\n can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJs 1622 (called 26 February 2007) and 1623 (called 27 February\n2007): \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\npartnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJs 1678-1680 (called 22 May 2007): For a partnership to be a legal\nperson, it must ultimately devolve its obligations onto a non-empty\nset of natural persons.]\n\n[CFJ 1614 (called 2 February 2007): Being any type of foodstuff has no\nrelation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g., keyboard,\nstenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption against\npersonhood and against one havinng spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007'),(405921,'rcs','00000001.00000314',869,'Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1181281909,'Rule 869/18 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a natural person\n can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJs 1622 (called 26 February 2007) and 1623 (called 27 February\n2007): \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\npartnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJs 1678-1680 (called 22 May 2007): For a partnership to be a legal\nperson, it must ultimately devolve its obligations onto a non-empty\nset of natural persons.]\n\n[CFJ 1614 (called 2 February 2007): Being any type of foodstuff has no\nrelation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one havinng spoken on one\'s own\nbehalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007'),(405922,'rcs','00000001.00000315',217,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules','Judgements Must Accord with the Rules',1181282027,'Rule 217/5 (Power=3)\nJudgements Must Accord with the Rules\n\n All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if\n the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement\n to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common\n sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game\n before applying other standards.\n\n When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement\n contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the\n truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was\n issued.\n\n[CFJ 897: The requirements in Rule 217 on Judgements apply to the\ndeterminations of the members of a Board of Appeal, as well as to the\nJudgements of Judges.]\n\n[CFJ 1139: Judgements need not necessarily accord with the reasoning\nand arguments of Judges or Justices given in past CFJs.]\n\n[CFJ 1219: A mistaken Judgement (ie one that does not accord with the\nRules) is still a Judgement, as long as the technical requirements on\nthe delivery of the Judgement have been met.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the issuance of a CFJ even if public knowledge\nat the time of issuance was not sufficient to determine it.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405923,'rcs','00000001.00000316',1607,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Promotor','The Promotor',1181311906,'Rule 1607/12 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor is permitted to distribute a proposal in the\n Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must\n distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was in the\n Proposal Pool at the beginning of the week.\n\n The Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it\n accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being\n distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from\n the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal initiates the\n Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n proposal the identity of its proposer, the proposal\'s coauthors,\n if any, its chamber, and its adoption index. However, the\n failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal\n does not deprive the distribution of the proposal of any legal\n effect.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly distributed\nwith a text that differs from the submitted text, this constitutes a\nlegal distribution if and only if the difference does not affect the\nmeaning of the proposal.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405924,'rcs','00000001.00000317',1728,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1181652126,'Rule 1728/14 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and\n only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N\n Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase\n \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1 Objection\",\n and the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\".\n\n A player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an\n unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform\n a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and\n only if:\n\n (a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the\n announcement of intent to perform the action;\n\n (b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N\n Objections, at least four days have passed since the\n announcement made under (a) of this rule;\n\n (c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or\n\n (1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by\n virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and\n\n (2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n holder of that position when e attempts to perform the\n action;\n\n (d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the\n action dependently;\n\n (e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of\n this rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections,\n fewer than N players who are natural persons have\n publicly posted objections (and not publicly retracted\n eir objections) to the performance of the action; and\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at\n least N players who are natural persons other than the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule have publicly posted support for the performance\n of the action;\n\n (f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies\n whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections\n or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit\n the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not\n permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (g) e announces that e performs the described action.\n\n A dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n A rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may\n restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that\n specific action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007'),(405925,'rcs','00000001.00000318',1950,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007','Voting Limits','Voting Limits',1181652493,'Rule 1950/16 (Power=3)\nVoting Limits\n\n An entity\'s voting limit on an Agoran decision is:\n\n (a) If the entity is not an eligible voter, then zero, not\n subject to modification.\n\n (b) Otherwise, if the decision is to resolve an ordinary\n proposal, then one, subject to modification by the rules.\n\n (c) Otherwise, one, subject to modification only by this rule.\n\n The voting limit of an entity who is not a natural person is\n reduced by one.\n\n At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first\n N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is\n the entity\'s voting limit on the decision at the start of the\n voting period) remain valid; all other ballots submitted on that\n decision are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007'),(405926,'rcs','00000001.00000318',879,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007','Quorum','Quorum',1181652493,'Rule 879/25 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\nCFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007'),(405927,'rcs','00000001.00000319',897,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5001 (root, Quazie), 12 June 2007','Court Procedure','Court Procedure',1181652571,'Rule 897/6 (Power=1)\nCourt Procedure\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along\n with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the\n Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and\n Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of\n the first Judge assigned to that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that\n CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ.\n The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before\n the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 897, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5001 (root, Quazie), 12 June 2007'),(405928,'rcs','00000001.00000320',2130,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007','Inactivity','Inactivity',1181738688,'Rule 2130/5 (Power=1)\nInactivity\n\n A player may become active or inactive by announcement.\n\n A player may, without objection, make another player inactive.\n\n Registration as a player causes the new player to become active.\n All non-players are inactive.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall indicate, for each player, whether\n the player is active or inactive, and the date on which this\n status last changed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007'),(405929,'rcs','00000001.00000321',754,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1181741348,'Rule 754/6 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted\n as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language\n synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall\n be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those\n contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language\n meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1659 (called 13 May 2007): A term explicitly defined by the rules\nmust be interpreted with its rule-defined meaning regardless of any\nqualification, elaboration, or attempted local redefinition.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405930,'rcs','00000001.00000321',1006,'Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007','Offices','Offices',1181741348,'Rule 1006/15 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): this rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007'),(405931,'rcs','00000001.00000321',1607,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Promotor','The Promotor',1181741348,'Rule 1607/12 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor is permitted to distribute a proposal in the\n Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must\n distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was in the\n Proposal Pool at the beginning of the week.\n\n The Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it\n accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being\n distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from\n the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal initiates the\n Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n proposal the identity of its proposer, the proposal\'s coauthors,\n if any, its chamber, and its adoption index. However, the\n failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal\n does not deprive the distribution of the proposal of any legal\n effect.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly\ndistributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this\nconstitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only\nif the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405932,'rcs','00000001.00000321',1742,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007','Agreements','Agreements',1181741348,'Rule 1742/5 (Power=1)\nAgreements\n\n Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that\n agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A\n Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements\neach construct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct\nidentities even if the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007'),(405933,'rcs','00000001.00000322',1023,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1182173650,'Rule 1023/19 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The term \"number\" shall mean \"real number\".\n\n (b) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" shall mean \"within seven\n days\".\n\n (c) The term \"random\" shall mean a choice drawn with a process\n whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes\n is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n (d) The term \"paragraph\" shall mean a subset of text determined\n as follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (e) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007'),(405934,'rcs','00000001.00000323',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1182173985,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.]\n\n[CFJ 858: If a low-Power [low-MI at the time of Judgement of CFJ 858]\nRule attempts to define a term used in a Rule of higher Power to mean\nsomething other than its ordinary English meaning, that may or may not\nconstitute a conflict; whether it does must be decided on a\ncase-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405935,'rcs','00000001.00000323',1030,'Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1182173985,'Rule 1030/5 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007'),(405936,'rcs','00000001.00000323',1681,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1182173985,'Rule 1681/10 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type\n of change, the date on which the change took effect, the\n mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was\n changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its\n proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007'),(405937,'rcs','00000001.00000323',879,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007','Quorum','Quorum',1182173985,'Rule 879/25 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007'),(405938,'rcs','00000001.00000323',1868,'Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1182173985,'Rule 1868/4 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding\n judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor\n denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.\n\n As soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no\n Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a\n Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial\n Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e\n is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.\n\n Other rules may explicitly delay the timing requirement of\n making assignments, for example with respect to providing the\n Defendant with response time in a Civil CFJ.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is eligible at the time that the Judge is selected,\nregardless of whether that Player was eligible at the time that the\nCFJ was actually called for or when the identity of that Player is\nannounced.]\n\n[CFJ 1187: A Judge is considered to be assigned to Judge a particular\nCFJ at the time that the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of\nthe Judge, and no sooner.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405939,'rcs','00000001.00000324',869,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1182174612,'Rule 869/19 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not\n prohibited from registering is permitted to register.\n\n A person registers or deregisters by announcement.\n\n Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be\n a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty\n days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007'),(405940,'rcs','00000001.00000324',2150,'Created by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007','Personhood','Personhood',1182174612,'Rule 2150/0 (Power=2)\nPersonhood\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n[CFJs 1622 (called 26 February 2007) and 1623 (called 27 February\n2007): \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\npartnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJs 1678-1680 (called 22 May 2007): For a partnership to be a legal\nperson, it must ultimately devolve its obligations onto a non-empty\nset of natural persons.]\n\n[CFJ 1614 (called 2 February 2007): Being any type of foodstuff has no\nrelation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one havinng spoken on one\'s own\nbehalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007'),(405941,'rcs','00000001.00000324',1728,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1182174612,'Rule 1728/15 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An action is dependent, or may be performed dependently, if and\n only if it is an Action Without N Objections or an Action With N\n Supporters, where N is a nonnegative integer. The phrase\n \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1 Objection\",\n and the phrase \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1\n Supporter\".\n\n A player may publicly announce eir intent to perform an\n unambiguously described dependent action. A player may perform\n a previously unambiguously described dependent action if and\n only if:\n\n (a) no more than fourteen days have passed since the\n announcement of intent to perform the action;\n\n (b) if the action to be performed is an Action Without N\n Objections, at least four days have passed since the\n announcement made under (a) of this rule;\n\n (c) either the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n player who made the announcement under (a) of this rule, or\n\n (1) the player who made the announcement under (a) of this\n rule did so by a privilege or duty granted em by\n virtue of holding a rules-defined position; and\n\n (2) the player who attempts to perform the action is the\n holder of that position when e attempts to perform the\n action;\n\n (d) the rules explicitly authorise the player to perform the\n action dependently;\n\n (e) during the time between the announcement made under (a) of\n this rule and the attempt to perform the action,\n\n (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections,\n fewer than N first-class players have publicly posted\n objections (and not publicly retracted eir objections)\n to the performance of the action; and\n\n (2) if the action is to be performed With N Supporters, at\n least N first-class players other than the player who\n made the announcement under (a) of this rule have\n publicly posted support for the performance of the\n action;\n\n (f) the announcement made under (a) of this rule specifies\n whether the action is to be performed Without N Objections\n or With N Supporters, unless the rules either do not permit\n the action to be performed Without N Objections or do not\n permit the action to be performed With N Supporters; and\n\n (g) e announces that e performs the described action.\n\n A dependent action is not performed until announced as in (g).\n\n The specification in the rules that an action may be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n A rule authorising the performance of a dependent action may\n restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that\n specific action.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007'),(405942,'rcs','00000001.00000324',1950,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007','Voting Limits','Voting Limits',1182174612,'Rule 1950/17 (Power=3)\nVoting Limits\n\n An entity\'s voting limit on an Agoran decision is:\n\n (a) If the entity is not an eligible voter, then zero, not\n subject to modification.\n\n (b) Otherwise, if the decision is to resolve an ordinary\n proposal, then one, subject to modification by the rules.\n\n (c) Otherwise, one, subject to modification only by this rule.\n\n The voting limit of an entity who is not a first-class person is\n reduced by one.\n\n At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first\n N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is\n the entity\'s voting limit on the decision at the start of the\n voting period) remain valid; all other ballots submitted on that\n decision are invalid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007'),(405943,'rcs','00000001.00000325',1742,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007','Agreements','Agreements',1182174689,'Rule 1742/6 (Power=1)\nAgreements\n\n Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n A Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements\neach construct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct\nidentities even if the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007'),(405944,'rcs','00000001.00000326',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1182215249,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * report activity (rule 2130)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * deregister convict in disgrace (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405945,'rcs','00000001.00000326',103,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Always a Speaker','Always a Speaker',1182215249,'Rule 103/2 (Power=3)\nAlways a Speaker\n\n There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker.\n No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never\n be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then\n the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes\n the Speaker.\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * initiate a contest to determine a winner (rule 2128)\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * ratify any official report (rule 1551)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\n * serve on board of appeals (rule 911)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * normal Speaker transition (rule 402)\n * overdue duties can be performed by another player (rule 1006)\n * mutually exclusive with Clerk of the Courts (rule 1450)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(405946,'rcs','00000001.00000326',2138,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1182215249,'Rule 2138/1 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 1006)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007'),(405947,'rcs','00000001.00000326',1377,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Herald','The Herald',1182215249,'Rule 1377/21 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of the History of Agora and its players.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n b) A list of one or more Threats, including Bears.\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 1377)\n * report Threats (rule 1377)\n * advertise Agora on the NomicWiki (rule 2135)\n * place convict in the Chokey (rule 1504)\n * award and revoke Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report status of honorary degrees (rule 2092)\n * manage and report titles of dishonor (rule 2129)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405948,'rcs','00000001.00000326',1051,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1182215249,'Rule 1051/17 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report shall include the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * assign number to rule (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)\n * archive Theses and Commentaries (rule 1370)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(405949,'rcs','00000001.00000326',889,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1182215249,'Rule 889/14 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * manage and report Stare Decisis (rule 889)\n * stay legislative order during dispute over validity (rule 1891)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * publish CFJ (rule 897)\n * notify defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 897)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * accept and publish judgement (rule 591)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 408)\n * accept and publish Judicial Order (rule 1803)\n * accept Motion and forward to judge (rule 1826)\n * accept and publish Opinion (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * accept and publish Appellate Order (rule 1803)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1803)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\n * track Agoran Contracts (rule 2109)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405950,'rcs','00000001.00000326',2137,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1182215249,'Rule 2137/0 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n The Assessor\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals.\n b) Each player\'s voting credits.\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Assessor\' duties are:\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report VLOP (rule 2137)\n * report VCs (rule 2137)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405951,'rcs','00000001.00000326',1607,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Promotor','The Promotor',1182215249,'Rule 1607/12 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor is permitted to distribute a proposal in the\n Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must\n distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was in the\n Proposal Pool at the beginning of the week.\n\n The Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it\n accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being\n distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from\n the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal initiates the\n Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n proposal the identity of its proposer, the proposal\'s coauthors,\n if any, its chamber, and its adoption index. However, the\n failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal\n does not deprive the distribution of the proposal of any legal\n effect.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly\ndistributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this\nconstitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only\nif the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * track Proposal Pool (rule 106)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * nominal recordkeepor of VCs (rule 2126) (this probably doesn\'t\n actually result in any obligations)\n * put copy of vetoed proposal into Proposal Pool (rule 2019)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405952,'rcs','00000001.00000327',106,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1182690724,'Rule 106/6 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of\n less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007'),(405953,'rcs','00000001.00000328',869,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1182690898,'Rule 869/20 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb\n \"to be registered\" means to become a player, and the verb \"to be\n deregistered\" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb \"to\n register\" or \"to deregister\" is used without an explicit direct\n object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective\n \"registered\", or its fuller form \"registered as a player\",\n describes those who are players.\n\n A person is permitted to register or deregister unless\n specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by\n announcement.\n\n Whenever a player is deregistered, e is prohibited from\n registering for the next thirty days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405954,'rcs','00000001.00000329',1794,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5012 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',1182690982,'Rule 1794/9 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an\n Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of\n the first class that matches.\n\n (a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the\n effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n\n (b) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of\n Appeals.\n\n (c) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the\n course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge.\n\n (d) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any\n person by announcement and directed at any entity. A\n timing order is valid if and only if it orders the entity\n to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically\n required of em by the Rules that does not otherwise have a\n specified timing requirement, or for which the otherwise\n specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as\n soon as possible after the Order is executed.\n\n No other types of Orders are valid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5012 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405955,'rcs','00000001.00000331',478,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Fora','Fora',1182691316,'Rule 478/18 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\nall Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time at\nwhich the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the\nrecipient\'s normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir\nprivate machine or eir private account on a shared machine (but not\nthe shared machine itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405956,'rcs','00000001.00000332',991,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Invoking Judgement','Invoking Judgement',1182691438,'Rule 991/7 (Power=2)\nInvoking Judgement\n\n Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by publishing a Call for Judgement (CFJ). The\n submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a\n dispute.\n\n A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth\n or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming\n perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,\n Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,\n but not required, to take notice of these things.\n\n[CFJ 888: Non-Players may make Calls for Judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405957,'rcs','00000001.00000332',897,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Court Procedure','Court Procedure',1182691438,'Rule 897/7 (Power=1)\nCourt Procedure\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall\n publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the\n Defendant\'s registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the\n Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a\n Player from judging as described below.\n\n The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week\n has passed since after a publication. During this time, any\n evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the\n Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will\n become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that\n CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it.\n\n When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three\n Players from Judging that CFJ.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ.\n The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before\n the CFJ is assigned to a judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 897, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5001 (root, Quazie), 12 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405958,'rcs','00000001.00000333',2109,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5016 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Agoran Contracts','Agoran Contracts',1182691491,'Rule 2109/2 (Power=2)\nAgoran Contracts\n\n There exists a type of binding agreement known as Agoran\n Contract. An Agoran Contract may only be created or amended by\n a Proposal and becomes effective when the Proposal takes effect.\n\n Unless otherwise specified in the Rules, all Players are bound\n by Agoran Contracts and no Player may leave an Agoran Contract\n while remaining a Player. The Proposal process shall, prima\n facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and\n privileges with respect to agreements.\n\n All Rules regulating Contracts that are inconsistent with this\n Rule are superseded to the extent of such inconsistency.\n\n The CotC\'s monthly report includes all Agoran Contracts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4755 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5016 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405959,'rcs','00000001.00000334',889,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1182691907,'Rule 889/14 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n[Cross-references (24 June 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * manage and report Stare Decisis (rule 889)\n * stay legislative order during dispute over validity (rule 1891)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * publish CFJ (rule 897)\n * notify defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 897)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * accept and publish judgement (rule 591)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 408)\n * accept Motion and forward to judge (rule 1826)\n * accept and publish Opinion (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * accept and publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\n * track Agoran Contracts (rule 2109)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405960,'rcs','00000001.00000334',1794,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5017 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',1182691907,'Rule 1794/10 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an\n Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of\n the first class that matches.\n\n (a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the\n effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n\n (b) An Appellate Order is an Order executed by a Board of\n Appeals.\n\n (c) A Judicial Order is an Order executed by a Judge in the\n course of performing eir duties or privileges as Judge. A\n Judicial Oredr is executed by announcement.\n\n (d) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any\n person by announcement and directed at any entity. A\n timing order is valid if and only if it orders the entity\n to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically\n required of em by the Rules that does not otherwise have a\n specified timing requirement, or for which the otherwise\n specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as\n soon as possible after the Order is executed.\n\n No other types of Orders are valid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5012 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5017 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405961,'rcs','00000001.00000334',1564,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5017 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Initiating Appeals','Initiating Appeals',1182691907,'Rule 1564/15 (Power=1)\nInitiating Appeals\n\n The following are subject to Appeal:\n\n a) The Judgement of a Trial Judge.\n b) The grant or denial of a Motion.\n c) The execution of a Judicial Order.\n d) A claim that a Trial Judge has failed to perform a required\n judicial duty.\n\n A subject is Appealed when any of the following occurs:\n\n i) Three Players Appeal it.\n ii) A Player Appeals a Judicial Order binding em.\n iii) A Player Appeals a Trial Judgement convicting em of a\n Crime.\n\n A single subject (e.g. a specific judgement, motion, or order)\n may only be appealed once.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appeal is initiated, or a Player\n becomes or ceases to be an Appellate judge, the Clerk of the\n Courts shall announce the event.\n\n An Appeal may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other\n related material; the Board of Appeals is encouraged, but not\n required, to take notice of these things.\n\n[CFJ 1273 (called 13 February 2001): dismissal of a CFJ is subject to\nAppeal.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, May 19 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3454 (Harlequin), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3455 (Andre), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3479 (Andre), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3489 (Zefram), May 19 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), Jun. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4937 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5017 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405962,'rcs','00000001.00000334',1804,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5017 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders','Appeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders',1182691907,'Rule 1804/4 (Power=1)\nAppeal of Judicial and Sentencing Orders\n\n As soon as possible after a Judicial Order is Appealed, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall stay it. If the Appeal is sustained,\n then the Board of Appeals shall vacate this stay as soon as\n possible. If the Appeal is overturned, then the Board of\n Appeals shall vacate the stayed Order as soon as possible.\n\n In the Appeal of a Judicial Order, the Board of Appeals shall\n consider whether the Order was properly and validly executed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5017 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405963,'rcs','00000001.00000335',889,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1182692017,'Rule 889/14 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n[Cross-references (24 June 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * manage and report Stare Decisis (rule 889)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * publish CFJ (rule 897)\n * notify defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 897)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * accept and publish judgement (rule 591)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 408)\n * accept Motion and forward to judge (rule 1826)\n * accept and publish Opinion (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * accept and publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\n * track Agoran Contracts (rule 2109)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405964,'rcs','00000001.00000336',2144,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1182798678,'Rule 2144/1 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set containing its natural-person\n members, plus each member of the basis of each of its\n non-natural-person members.\n\n A partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the\n same as that of another registered partnership.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007'),(405965,'rcs','00000001.00000337',889,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1182798808,'Rule 889/14 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n[Cross-references (25 June 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * manage and report Stare Decisis (rule 889)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * publish CFJ (rule 897)\n * notify defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 897)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * accept and publish judgement (rule 591)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 408)\n * accept Motion and forward to judge (rule 1826)\n * accept and publish Opinion (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * accept and publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405966,'rcs','00000001.00000338',889,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1182799164,'Rule 889/14 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n[Cross-references (25 June 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * manage and report Stare Decisis (rule 889)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * publish CFJ (rule 897)\n * notify defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 897)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * accept and publish judgement (rule 591)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 408)\n * accept Motion and forward to judge (rule 1826)\n * archive opinion with CFJ (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * accept and publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405967,'rcs','00000001.00000338',1365,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5025 (BobTHJ), 25 June 2007','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions','Concurring and Dissenting Opinions',1182799164,'Rule 1365/11 (Power=1)\nConcurring and Dissenting Opinions\n\n A player may submit a Concurring or Dissenting opinion for a\n given CFJ trial or appeals decision with 1 Support. The opinion\n must reference the CFJ in question and clearly indicate that it\n is an opinion to be appended to that CFJ. The opinion should be\n accompanied by reasons or arguments. The Clerk of the Courts\n shall append any properly submitted opinion to the CFJ in\n question, along with a list of the Player who submitted that\n opinion and the player(s) who supported it.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1365, Jan. 5 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1644, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1734, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Nov. 4 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2750 (Chuck), Nov. 18 1996, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3531 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5025 (BobTHJ), 25 June 2007'),(405968,'rcs','00000001.00000339',2129,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5027 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Dishonor Rolls','Dishonor Rolls',1183036453,'Rule 2129/1 (Power=1)\nDishonor Rolls\n\n When the Herald is ordered to place someone in the Chokey, e\n shall publically award em the patent title \"In the Chokey\".\n\n This title shall be automatically revoked after a length of time\n indicated by the sentencing order, and the Herald shall announce\n the revocation. If a sentencing order is executed against a\n defendant who already holds this title, the length of time of\n the new sentencing order shall be added to the time left on any\n previous ones.\n\n A person is considered to be In Disgrace while in the Chokey,\n between the execution and satisfaction of any sentencing orders\n binding em, or if deregistered for lawlessness. A person who\n leaves the game in disgrace shall be awarded the Patent Title\n Fugitive by the Herald. A Player may revoke the title Fugitive\n from emself as long as e is no longer in Disgrace. A non-player\n may have this title revoked by Agoran Consent.\n\n The rules may further specify actions prohibited to persons in\n particular types of disgrace.\n\n The Herald is encouraged to publish lists of those in disgrace\n separate from patent titles of honor, to indicate the disgrace.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4879 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5027 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405969,'rcs','00000001.00000340',1742,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Agreements','Agreements',1183036547,'Rule 1742/7 (Power=1)\nAgreements\n\n Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the\n Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n A Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a person to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements\neach construct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct\nidentities even if the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405970,'rcs','00000001.00000341',1006,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007','Offices','Offices',1183036650,'Rule 1006/16 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office,\n thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran\n Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then\n the officer shall publish that information at least once a month,\n or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the\n information or the officer receives a request for the information.\n A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two\n requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, then the player who executed the\n order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): this rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007'),(405971,'rcs','00000001.00000341',1793,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007','Orders','Orders',1183036650,'Rule 1793/3 (Power=1)\nOrders\n\n An Order is a command, executed by an entity and directed to\n some entity requiring that entity to perform exactly one action,\n or to refrain from performing one or more actions.\n\n An Order may be directed to the holder of an official position\n in eir capacity in that official position, and if the position\n changes hands before the Order is satisfied, the duty to abide\n by the Order automatically attaches to the new holder of that\n position.\n\n An Order may also be directed at a prior order so as to affect\n the prior order\'s operation, as the Rules permit.\n\n All Orders executed in the manner prescribed by the Rules for\n their class are presumed valid and enforceable until proven\n otherwise by CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007'),(405972,'rcs','00000001.00000342',2126,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1183036747,'Rule 2126/7 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of\n property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as\n described in this rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir\n voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.\n\n When an Ordinary proposal is adopted, its proposer gains VCs\n equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption\n index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)\n who held that office for the majority of that month gains two\n VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has\n performed poorly in eir duties.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who\n is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period,\n loses one VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405973,'rcs','00000001.00000343',1607,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Promotor','The Promotor',1183036807,'Rule 1607/12 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor is permitted to distribute a proposal in the\n Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must\n distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was in the\n Proposal Pool at the beginning of the week.\n\n The Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it\n accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being\n distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from\n the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal initiates the\n Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n proposal the identity of its proposer, the proposal\'s coauthors,\n if any, its chamber, and its adoption index. However, the\n failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal\n does not deprive the distribution of the proposal of any legal\n effect.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly\ndistributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this\nconstitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only\nif the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 June 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * track Proposal Pool (rule 106)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * put copy of vetoed proposal into Proposal Pool (rule 2019)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405974,'rcs','00000001.00000344',1377,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Herald','The Herald',1183036911,'Rule 1377/21 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of the History of Agora and its players.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n b) A list of one or more Threats, including Bears.\n\n[Cross-references (28 June 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 1377)\n * report Threats (rule 1377)\n * advertise Agora on the NomicWiki (rule 2135)\n * place convict in the Chokey (rule 1504)\n * award and revoke Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * manage and report titles of dishonor (rule 2129)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405975,'rcs','00000001.00000345',1377,'Amended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Herald','The Herald',1183036990,'Rule 1377/21 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of the History of Agora and its players.\n\n The Herald\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) A list of each Patent Title and Degree that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n b) A list of one or more Threats, including Bears.\n\n[Cross-references (28 June 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 1377)\n * report Threats (rule 1377)\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * place convict in the Chokey (rule 1504)\n * award and revoke Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * manage and report titles of dishonor (rule 2129)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(405976,'rcs','00000001.00000345',2135,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Herald to Advertise','Herald to Advertise',1183036990,'Rule 2135/1 (Power=1)\nHerald to Advertise\n\n Every month the Herald shall update the page about Agora on the\n NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is operational.\n This page, when updated, is to include a list of the current\n players. In updating the page the Herald shall ensure that\n information that is currently incorrect is either corrected or\n removed, and that all links on the page point to extant pages\n that are correctly described. The Herald may add new correct\n information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The Herald is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405977,'rcs','00000001.00000346',1377,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','The Herald','The Herald',1183037134,'Rule 1377/22 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of marks of honour and shame relating to Agora.\n\n[Cross-references (28 June 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * place convict in the Chokey (rule 1504)\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * award and revoke Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * manage and report titles of dishonor (rule 2129)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405978,'rcs','00000001.00000346',649,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1183037134,'Rule 649/19 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report shall\n include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person\n Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title\n shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or\n revoke that Patent Title.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405979,'rcs','00000001.00000347',2151,'Created by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1183037434,'Rule 2151/0 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007'),(405980,'rcs','00000001.00000348',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1183037625,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405981,'rcs','00000001.00000349',2144,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1183037772,'Rule 2144/2 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set containing its natural-person\n members, plus each member of the basis of each of its\n non-natural-person members.\n\n A partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the\n same as that of another registered partnership.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n registered partnership, it can be deregistered by any player by\n announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405982,'rcs','00000001.00000350',889,'Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1183038311,'Rule 889/14 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n The CotC\'s Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which\n is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be\n included for each CFJ:\n\n (i) its statement;\n (ii) the date on which it was called;\n (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and\n (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal.\n\n Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E\n may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without\n Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the\n list.\n\n[Cross-references (28 June 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * manage and report Stare Decisis (rule 889)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * accept and publish judgement (rule 591)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 408)\n * accept Motion and forward to judge (rule 1826)\n * archive opinion with CFJ (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * accept and publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\n * inform defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)\n * delay assignment of Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007'),(405983,'rcs','00000001.00000350',897,'Retitled by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Barring Players from Judgement','Barring Players from Judgement',1183038311,'Rule 897/8 (Power=1)\nBarring Players from Judgement\n\n A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that\n CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging\n it.\n\n When submitting a CFJ, the caller may bar up to three players\n from judging that CFJ.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 897, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), Mar. 8 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5001 (root, Quazie), 12 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405984,'rcs','00000001.00000350',1868,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1183038311,'Rule 1868/5 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n A CFJ is open if it has not been Judged, or if an outstanding\n judicial motion pertaining to it has been neither granted nor\n denied. A CFJ is closed if it is not open.\n\n As soon as possible after becoming aware that an open CFJ has no\n Judge assigned to it, the Clerk of the Courts shall choose a\n Player eligible to Judge it, and announce them as its Trial\n Judge. That Player remains the Trial Judge of that CFJ until e\n is recused from it or becomes ineligible to Judge it.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is eligible at the time that the Judge is selected,\nregardless of whether that Player was eligible at the time that the\nCFJ was actually called for or when the identity of that Player is\nannounced.]\n\n[CFJ 1187: A Judge is considered to be assigned to Judge a particular\nCFJ at the time that the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of\nthe Judge, and no sooner.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405985,'rcs','00000001.00000350',1742,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Agreements','Agreements',1183038311,'Rule 1742/8 (Power=1)\nAgreements\n\n Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the caller is the\n plaintiff.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from\n judging it. The plaintiff may bar one other player when e\n submits the CFJ, but is not otherwise at that time permitted or\n able to bar any players from judging the CFJ, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding. The defendant may bar one other\n player from judging, any time before the CFJ is assigned to a\n judge.\n\n Any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by\n the defendant of a Civil CFJ with the clear intent of being part\n of a defense, any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge,\n will become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall as\n soon as possible send a copy of the CFJ to the defendant and\n inform the defendant that e has one week to publish a defense\n and/or bar a Player from judging. The CotC is prohibited from\n assigning a Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ until one week has passed\n since e notified the defendant of this, and is not obliged to\n assign a Trial Judge during this time, any rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding. Starting from one week after the CotC has\n notified the defendant, the CotC is obliged to assign a Trial\n Judge as soon as possible, and this assignment shall in all\n other respects be governed by the usual rules for assignment of\n judges.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n A Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a person to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements\neach construct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct\nidentities even if the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405986,'rcs','00000001.00000351',2145,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007','Partnerships','Partnerships',1183038402,'Rule 2145/1 (Power=1)\nPartnerships\n\n A non-natural person that is created by an Agreement between two\n or more persons is known as a Partnership. A Partnership comes\n into existence with the initiation of the Agreement that creates\n it, and it ceases to exist when that Agreement is terminated.\n The persons who are party to the Agreement may change during the\n course of that Agreement (if the Agreement allows for it)\n without disrupting the existence of the Partnership as a person\n as long as that Agreement remains in effect.\n\n Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly\n assigns its rights, obligations, and responsibilities onto the\n parties of that agreement to be a non-natural person.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007'),(405987,'rcs','00000001.00000352',991,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Invoking Judgement','Invoking Judgement',1183060353,'Rule 991/7 (Power=2)\nInvoking Judgement\n\n Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining\n to this Nomic by publishing a Call for Judgement (CFJ). The\n submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a\n dispute.\n\n A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth\n or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming\n perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,\n Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,\n but not required, to take notice of these things.\n\n[CFJ 888: Non-Players may make Calls for Judgement.]\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(405988,'rcs','00000001.00000353',1742,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Agreements','Agreements',1183061764,'Rule 1742/8 (Power=1)\nAgreements\n\n Persons may make agreements among themselves with the intention\n that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become\n parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.\n\n A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the defendant) has\n broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the caller is the\n plaintiff.\n\n The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from\n judging it. The plaintiff may bar one other player when e\n submits the CFJ, but is not otherwise at that time permitted or\n able to bar any players from judging the CFJ, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding. The defendant may bar one other\n player from judging, any time before the CFJ is assigned to a\n judge.\n\n Any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by\n the defendant of a Civil CFJ with the clear intent of being part\n of a defense, any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge,\n will become part of the material of that CFJ.\n\n When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall as\n soon as possible send a copy of the CFJ to the defendant and\n inform the defendant that e has one week to publish a defense\n and/or bar a Player from judging. The CotC is prohibited from\n assigning a Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ until one week has passed\n since e notified the defendant of this, and is not obliged to\n assign a Trial Judge during this time, any rule to the contrary\n notwithstanding. Starting from one week after the CotC has\n notified the defendant, the CotC is obliged to assign a Trial\n Judge as soon as possible, and this assignment shall in all\n other respects be governed by the usual rules for assignment of\n judges.\n\n If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered\n into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that\n the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all\n of the following:\n\n (i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement\n or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the\n interests of the agreement;\n\n (ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such\n acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and\n justice;\n\n (iii) order that additional (\"punitive\") penalties or actions\n be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement\n in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for\n the type of breach.\n\n A Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple\n independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall\n be dismissed.\n\n Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the\n enforcement of an agreement which requires a person to violate\n another agreement.\n\n[CFJ 1658 (called 11 May 2007): The word \"contract\" is by default a\nsynonym for \"binding agreement\".]\n\n[CFJ 1682 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly one player.]\n\n[CFJ 1683 (called 23 May 2007): A binding agreement under rule 1742\ncannot be made among a set of exactly zero players (the empty set).]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJs 1666-1667 (called 14 May 2007): Where two binding agreements\neach construct a partnership, the partnerships have distinct\nidentities even if the set of partners is the same.]\n\n[CFJ 1668 (called 14 May 2007): Where a binding agreement constructs a\npartnership and allows the set of partners to change, the identity of\nthe partnership remains the same across changes of partners.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(405989,'rcs','00000001.00000354',2034,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1183065160,'Rule 2034/2 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change\n the validity of one or more of a voter\'s ballots on an Agoran\n decision whose voting period has begun but which has not yet\n been resolved shall be wholly without effect, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, no ballots on that\n decision may be validly submitted or retracted, and the outcome\n of the decision may not be changed in any way, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this rule shall be\n construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting\n the resolution of an Agoran decision.\n\n If the success of the resolution of an Agoran decision is not\n challenged within one week from the time the vote collector\n announces it, then the announced result is the true result of\n that decision, even if it would otherwise be in error.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to the resolution of an\nAgoran decision must explicitly identify the decision, either\nindividually or as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy\nof some aspect of the attempted resolution.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005'),(405990,'rcs','00000001.00000355',2150,'Created by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007','Personhood','Personhood',1183117888,'Rule 2150/0 (Power=2)\nPersonhood\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n[CFJs 1622 (called 26 February 2007) and 1623 (called 27 February\n2007): \"person\" in the rules means \"legal person\", which includes\npartnerships that exist under the rules.]\n\n[CFJs 1678-1680 (called 22 May 2007): For a partnership to be a legal\nperson, it must ultimately devolve its obligations onto a non-empty\nset of natural persons.]\n\n[CFJ 1687 (called 8 June 2007): A partnership constructed by a\ncontract governed by the law of Colorado is not a person in Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1614 (called 2 February 2007): Being any type of foodstuff has no\nrelation to personhood.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one havinng spoken on one\'s own\nbehalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007'),(405991,'rcs','00000001.00000355',106,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1183117888,'Rule 106/6 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active\n players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of\n less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007'),(405992,'rcs','00000001.00000355',2145,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007','Partnerships','Partnerships',1183117888,'Rule 2145/1 (Power=1)\nPartnerships\n\n A non-natural person that is created by an Agreement between two\n or more persons is known as a Partnership. A Partnership comes\n into existence with the initiation of the Agreement that creates\n it, and it ceases to exist when that Agreement is terminated.\n The persons who are party to the Agreement may change during the\n course of that Agreement (if the Agreement allows for it)\n without disrupting the existence of the Partnership as a person\n as long as that Agreement remains in effect.\n\n Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly\n assigns its rights, obligations, and responsibilities onto the\n parties of that agreement to be a non-natural person.\n\n[CFJ 1691 (called 20 June 2007): The first paragraph of rule 2145\nimplicitly accepts that agreements do in fact create non-natural\npersons, provided that those agreements are compatible with the\nrules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007'),(405993,'rcs','00000001.00000356',2142,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1183298054,'Rule 2142/1 (Power=1.1)\nSupport Democracy\n\n Any player may change an Ordinary proposal\'s Adoption Index to\n 1.1 during its voting period With 2 Supporters.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007'),(405994,'rcs','00000001.00000357',2142,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1183298212,'Rule 2142/2 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n Any player may change an Ordinary proposal\'s Adoption Index to 2\n during its voting period With 2 Supporters.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007'),(405995,'rcs','00000001.00000358',2144,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1183298544,'Rule 2144/4 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set containing its natural-person\n members, plus each member of the basis of each of its\n non-natural-person members.\n\n A partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the\n same as that of another registered partnership.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n registered partnership, it can be deregistered by any player\n with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007'),(405996,'rcs','00000001.00000360',1950,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007','Voting Limits','Voting Limits',1183298813,'Rule 1950/18 (Power=3)\nVoting Limits\n\n An entity\'s voting limit on an Agoran decision is:\n\n (a) If the entity is not an eligible voter, then zero, not\n subject to modification.\n\n (b) Otherwise, if the decision is to resolve an ordinary\n proposal, then one, subject to modification by the rules.\n\n (c) Otherwise, one, subject to modification only by this rule.\n\n The voting limit of an entity who is not a first-class person is\n reduced by one.\n\n At the end of the voting period of an Agoran decision, the first\n N ballots submitted by each entity on that decision (where N is\n the entity\'s voting limit at the decision\'s ballot allotment\n time) remain valid; all other ballots submitted on that decision\n are invalid.\n\n The ballot allotment time of a proposal that becomes or ceases\n to be ordinary during the proposal\'s voting period is the time\n of the last such change. The ballot allotment time of any other\n decision is the start of the voting period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007'),(405997,'rcs','00000001.00000361',1607,'Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006','The Promotor','The Promotor',1183298930,'Rule 1607/12 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor is permitted to distribute a proposal in the\n Proposal Pool at any time. During each week, the Promotor must\n distribute each proposal in the proposal pool which was in the\n Proposal Pool at the beginning of the week.\n\n The Promotor legally distributes a proposal by publishing it\n accompanied by an explicit indication that it is being\n distributed. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from\n the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal initiates the\n Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described\n elsewhere.\n\n The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each\n proposal the identity of its proposer, the proposal\'s coauthors,\n if any, its chamber, and its adoption index. However, the\n failure of the Promotor to include any of these with a proposal\n does not deprive the distribution of the proposal of any legal\n effect.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly\ndistributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this\nconstitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only\nif the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 July 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * track Proposal Pool (rule 106)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006'),(405998,'rcs','00000001.00000361',2019,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007','The Speaker\'s Veto','The Speaker\'s Veto',1183298930,'Rule 2019/8 (Power=2)\nThe Speaker\'s Veto\n\n The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period\n by announcement. Quorum for a vetoed proposal is positive\n infinity, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\n The Speaker may rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting\n period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped proposal is\n three, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007'),(405999,'rcs','00000001.00000362',2019,'Retitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007','Speaker\'s Veto and Rubber Stamp','Speaker\'s Veto and Rubber Stamp',1183299458,'Rule 2019/8 (Power=2)\nSpeaker\'s Veto and Rubber Stamp\n\n The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period\n by announcement. Quorum for a vetoed proposal is positive\n infinity, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\n The Speaker may rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting\n period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped proposal is\n three, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007'),(406000,'rcs','00000001.00000365',911,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007','The Board of Appeals','The Board of Appeals',1183646198,'Rule 911/15 (Power=1)\nThe Board of Appeals\n\n When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be\n selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A\n Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge\n assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge.\n\n A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts\n correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges,\n determined as follows:\n\n a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible.\n b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible.\n c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the\n Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players.\n\n A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is\n true:\n\n i) E has already been selected for that Board.\n ii) E has been dismissed from that Board.\n iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal.\n iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection.\n\n An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir\n replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the\n Player consents.\n\n As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the\n Clerk of the Courts shall select an eligible Player to replace\n em.\n\n The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that\n Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement\n becomes Lead Judge.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007'),(406001,'rcs','00000001.00000366',2126,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1183646267,'Rule 2126/8 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of\n property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as\n described in this rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir\n voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.\n\n When an Ordinary proposal is adopted and its proposer is not the\n proposer of any Ordinary proposal previously adopted in the same\n week, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer portion of\n twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each co-author of the\n proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)\n who held that office for the majority of that month gains two\n VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has\n performed poorly in eir duties.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who\n is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period,\n loses one VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007'),(406002,'rcs','00000001.00000367',2152,'Created by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1183646592,'Rule 2152/0 (Power=1)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified player(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent to \"CANNOT X unless Y\". Similar\n for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y.\n\n 5. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 6. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007'),(406003,'rcs','00000001.00000368',2152,'Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1183646657,'Rule 2152/0 (Power=2)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified player(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN X ONLY IF Y: Equivalent to \"CANNOT X unless Y\". Similar\n for (MUST, MAY, SHALL, SHOULD) X ONLY IF Y.\n\n 5. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 6. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007'),(406004,'rcs','00000001.00000369',2153,'Created by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007','Disinterested Proposals','Disinterested Proposals',1183646987,'Rule 2153/0 (Power=1)\nDisinterested Proposals\n\n A proposal is disinterested if it is labeled as such by its\n author at the time of submission. A proposal should be\n disinterested if and only if its effects are limited to\n correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\n\n The author and co-author(s) of a disinterested proposal do not\n receive any rewards for its adoption, rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007'),(406005,'rcs','00000001.00000369',2126,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1183646987,'Rule 2126/9 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of\n property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as\n described in this rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir\n voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.\n\n When an Ordinary Interested proposal is adopted and its proposer\n is not the proposer of any Ordinary proposal previously adopted\n in the same week, its proposer gains VCs equal to the integer\n portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption index, and each\n co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)\n who held that office for the majority of that month gains two\n VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has\n performed poorly in eir duties.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who\n is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period,\n loses one VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007'),(406006,'rcs','00000001.00000370',1447,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5057 (root), 5 July 2007','Final Judgement upon Appeal','Final Judgement upon Appeal',1183647259,'Rule 1447/21 (Power=1)\nFinal Judgement upon Appeal\n\n For an Appellate Judge assigned to the Appeal of a Judgement,\n a Judgement is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN, REVERSE,\n REASSIGN, or REMAND. For the appeal of other matters, a Judgement\n is exactly one of the following: SUSTAIN or OVERTURN. Other Rules\n may modify this based on the subject of the Appeal.\n\n If a Judgement of TRUE or FALSE is Appealed, the Board of\n Appeals shall consider the correctness of that Judgement. If a\n Judgement of DISMISSED is Appealed, the Board shall not consider\n the truth or falsity of the original CFJ; they shall only\n consider whether a Judgement of DISMISSED should have been\n delivered.\n\n If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge SUSTAIN, then the\n subject of the Appeal is sustained. Otherwise, it is overturned.\n The Board of Appeals shall execute whatever Appellate Orders are\n necessary to enforce its determination.\n\n When a Judgement is overturned:\n\n a) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REVERSE, then the\n CFJ shall be treated as if it were Judged normally, with the\n Judgement being that which a majority of the Appellate Judges\n agree on.\n\n b) If a majority of the Appellate Judges Judge REMAND, then the\n original Judgement shall be ignored, and the Clerk of the\n Courts shall reassign the CFJ to the original Judge as if it\n were being originally assigned. The Judge may not make the\n same Judgement for the same reason.\n\n c) Otherwise, the original Judgement is ignored, the original\n Judge is recused, and the Clerk of the Courts shall reassign\n the CFJ to a new Judge in the same fashion as it was\n originally assigned. The new Judge cannot make the same\n Judgement as the original Judge for the same reason.\n\n A Board of Appeals is not considered to have returned a\n Judgement until all of its members have submitted eir\n Judgements. As soon as possible after this happened, the Clerk\n of the Courts shall announce the Board\'s decision.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1656, Aug. 14 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 10 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), Mar. 7 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3473 (Harlequin), May 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4109 (Steve), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5057 (root), 5 July 2007'),(406007,'rcs','00000001.00000371',2126,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1183647385,'Rule 2126/10 (Power=3)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. A player\'s VC is at\n all times a non-negative integer. VCs are not any form of\n property and cannot be traded. VCs can be affected only as\n described in this rule.\n\n When one or more players win the game, all players\' voting\n limits on ordinary proposals are reset to one, subject to\n modification by other rules.\n\n When a player joins Agora, eir VCs are set to zero and eir\n voting limit on ordinary proposals is set to one.\n\n When an Ordinary Interested proposal is adopted and its proposer\n is not the proposer of any Ordinary Interested proposal\n previously adopted in the same week, its proposer gains VCs\n equal to the integer portion of twice the proposal\'s adoption\n index, and each co-author of the proposal gains one VC.\n\n At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if any)\n who held that office for the majority of that month gains two\n VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces that the officer has\n performed poorly in eir duties.\n\n A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period\n gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned, or who\n is recused for failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period,\n loses one VC, if e has any.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to increase eir own voting limit on\n ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend one VC to increase any other player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n A player may expend two VCs to decrease any other player\'s\n voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, down to a minimum\n voting limit of zero. Attempts to decrease a player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals below this minimum fail.\n\n If a player attempts to expend more VCs than e currently has,\n the action fails, and the VCs are not expended.\n\n Changes to voting limits under this rule take effect at the\n beginning of the next week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007'),(406008,'rcs','00000001.00000372',1006,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007','Offices','Offices',1183977480,'Rule 1006/17 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to\n perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed\n the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): this rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007'),(406009,'rcs','00000001.00000372',2154,'Created by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1183977480,'Rule 2154/0 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any Player may make an active Player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the\n office, with Agoran Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as\n above, then any other active player may be nominated for the\n position with eir own consent by announcement, during the\n minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for\n Agoran Consent.\n\n If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting\n nominee, then the attempt to achieve Agoran Consent fails, and\n the IADoP shall initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the new\n office holder, meanwhile no further attempt to achieve Agoran\n Consent for the change shall be valid. The valid options for\n the decision are the nominees, quorum is a minimum of three and\n the number of active players, eligible voters are the active\n players, and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice\n resolving the decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from\n the set of nominees which each received the largest number of\n votes; this chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the\n posting of the valid notice.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007'),(406010,'rcs','00000001.00000372',2138,'Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1183977480,'Rule 2138/1 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (9 July 2007): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007'),(406011,'rcs','00000001.00000373',103,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Always a Speaker','Always a Speaker',1183977660,'Rule 103/2 (Power=3)\nAlways a Speaker\n\n There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker.\n No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never\n be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then\n the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes\n the Speaker.\n\n[Cross-references (9 July 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * ratify any official report (rule 1551)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\n * serve on board of appeals (rule 911)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * normal Speaker transition (rule 402)\n * overdue duties can be performed by another player (rule 1006)\n * mutually exclusive with Clerk of the Courts (rule 1450)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(406012,'rcs','00000001.00000374',2144,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007','Limited Partnerships','Limited Partnerships',1183978204,'Rule 2144/5 (Power=1)\nLimited Partnerships\n\n A partnership is prohibited from registering if its basis is the\n same as that of another registered partnership.\n\n If a registered partnership has the same basis as another\n registered partnership, it can be deregistered by any player\n with Agoran Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007'),(406013,'rcs','00000001.00000374',2150,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007','Personhood','Personhood',1183978204,'Rule 2150/1 (Power=2)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007'),(406014,'rcs','00000001.00000374',2145,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007','Partnerships','Partnerships',1183978204,'Rule 2145/2 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n set of its non-partnership members with the bases of each of its\n partnership members. Where circularity occurs in this\n definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets that\n provide consistency.\n\n A partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a\n person.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007'),(406015,'rcs','00000001.00000375',2136,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007','Contests','Contests',1184159153,'Rule 2136/2 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score, which is always a\n real number, and scores are not categorically prevented from\n being any particular real number. When a player registers, eir\n score is set to zero.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month\n to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a\n different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If\n this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:\n\n 1. The announcing player wins the game.\n 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007'),(406016,'rcs','00000001.00000376',2136,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007','Contests','Contests',1184159240,'Rule 2136/3 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score, which is always an\n algebraic real number, and scores are not categorically\n prevented from being any particular algebraic real number. When\n a player registers, eir score is set to zero.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month\n to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a\n different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If\n this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:\n\n 1. The announcing player wins the game.\n 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007'),(406017,'rcs','00000001.00000377',2136,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007','Contests','Contests',1184159297,'Rule 2136/4 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score, which is always a\n rational number, and scores are not categorically prevented from\n being any particular rational number. When a player registers,\n eir score is set to zero.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month\n to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a\n different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If\n this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:\n\n 1. The announcing player wins the game.\n 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007'),(406018,'rcs','00000001.00000378',2136,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007','Contests','Contests',1184159412,'Rule 2136/5 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score, which is always an\n integer. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month\n to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a\n different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If\n this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:\n\n 1. The announcing player wins the game.\n 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007'),(406019,'rcs','00000001.00000379',889,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1184159518,'Rule 889/15 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n[Cross-references (11 July 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * accept and publish judgement (rule 591)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 408)\n * accept Motion and forward to judge (rule 1826)\n * archive opinion with CFJ (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * accept and publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\n * inform defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)\n * delay assignment of Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007'),(406020,'rcs','00000001.00000380',889,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1184159888,'Rule 889/15 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n[Cross-references (11 July 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * recuse judge who is tardy on judgement (rule 408)\n * recuse judge who is tardy on motion (rule 1826)\n * archive opinion with CFJ (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\n * inform defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)\n * delay assignment of Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 June 2007'),(406021,'rcs','00000001.00000380',591,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 June 2007','Legal Judgements','Legal Judgements',1184159888,'Rule 591/19 (Power=1)\nLegal Judgements\n\n The judge of a CFJ judges it by publishing eir judgement, along\n with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers\n relevant.\n\n For a trial judge, a judgement is exactly one of the following:\n TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 June 2007'),(406022,'rcs','00000001.00000380',1826,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 June 2007','Motions','Motions',1184159888,'Rule 1826/2 (Power=1)\nMotions\n\n A motion is a formal request made by a player to the judge of a\n CFJ. A motion is made by announcement, which must clearly\n identify the CFJ to which the motion applies.\n\n The judge of a CFJ must either grant or deny each motion that\n applies to that CFJ within five days of it being made. If a\n judge fails to grant or deny an applicable motion within five\n days of it being made, the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse the\n judge and assign a new one. If a motion is made after a case\n has been judged, and the original judge of that case is not\n active or is not a player, then the Clerk of the Courts shall\n assign a new judge.\n\n A judge grants or denies a motion by publishing eir\n determination, along with any arguments, evidence, or other\n material that e considers relevant. The effect of granting a\n motion depends on its nature, but generally amounts to requiring\n the judge to perform as requested by the motion. A denied\n motion has no further effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 June 2007'),(406023,'rcs','00000001.00000380',1805,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 June 2007','Appellate Orders','Appellate Orders',1184159888,'Rule 1805/3 (Power=1)\nAppellate Orders\n\n Appellate Orders are executed by being published by the Lead\n Judge of a Board of Appeals. The Lead Judge must certify in the\n execution that the order is executed by the concurrence of the\n majority of the Justices comprising that Board of Appeals;\n failure to do so deprives the Order of effect.\n\n Appellate Orders are not subject to appeal. However, upon a\n judicial finding that the required certification was falsely\n provided, the Clerk of the Courts shall vacate the Order which\n was accompanied by that false certification.\n\n Appellate Orders are valid only if addressed to:\n a) The Clerk of the Courts in eir Official capacity;\n b) an Order issued by the Clerk of the Courts in eir Official\n Capacity;\n c) The Judge of the CFJ which that Board of Appeals was\n convened to consider, or any Order issued by that Judge in\n that particular CFJ; or\n d) any combination of the above.\n All other Appellate Orders are presumptively invalid.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as\n soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal\n which executed it.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n validity of Appellate Orders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 June 2007'),(406024,'rcs','00000001.00000381',2024,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007','Linked Statements','Linked Statements',1184160367,'Rule 2024/6 (Power=1)\nLinked Statements\n\n Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement deemed to be\n sufficiently similar that they should have a single judge.\n\n Linkage is transitive. When a set of one or more linked CFJs\n change jurisdiction, they remain linked to each other, but\n become unlinked from any other CFJs; they may become linked\n to one or more CFJs within the new jurisdiction.\n\n Multiple CFJs, submitted in a single message and clearly\n labelled as Linked CFJs, become linked. The players (if any)\n barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only\n players e may bar from judging the others.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall not assign judges directly to the\n members of a set of Linked CFJs, but shall assign a judge to the\n set, as if it was a single CFJ. The judge must be eligible to\n judge each member of the set, and is simultaneously assigned\n as judge of each member of the set.\n\n The judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir judgement of\n each of those CFJs in a single message.\n\n A trial judge may remand one or more linked CFJs to the Clerk of\n the Courts by announcement. E ceases to be their judge.\n\n A trial judge may transfer one or more of eir CFJs to a second\n trial judge by announcement (identifying one of the second judge\'s\n CFJs), provided that the second judge consents, and is eligible to\n judge all of them. The transferred CFJs become linked to the\n second judge\'s CFJ (and any others to which it is already linked).\n\n[CFJ 1602 (called 10 January 2007): A set of Linked CFJs is an entity\ndistinct from the individual CFJs from which it is composed.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4659 (root), 29 March 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4895 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007'),(406025,'rcs','00000001.00000381',1868,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Selecting a Judge','Selecting a Judge',1184160367,'Rule 1868/6 (Power=1)\nSelecting a Judge\n\n Whenever a CFJ that has not been judged has no trial judge\n assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall as soon as possible\n assign an eligible judge to it by announcement. The assigned\n judge remains its trial judge until recused.\n\n Every active player is eligible to be assigned as a trial judge\n unless made ineligible by the rules. Entities other than active\n players are always ineligible.\n\n If the Clerk of the Courts errs in good faith by assigning an\n ineligible judge then the assignment stands. In this case, the\n Clerk of the Courts may recuse the judge by announcement\n accompanied by a description of eir error.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is eligible at the time that the Judge is selected,\nregardless of whether that Player was eligible at the time that the\nCFJ was actually called for or when the identity of that Player is\nannounced.]\n\n[CFJ 1187: A Judge is considered to be assigned to Judge a particular\nCFJ at the time that the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of\nthe Judge, and no sooner.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406026,'rcs','00000001.00000381',1871,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1184160367,'Rule 1871/12 (Power=1)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Each player is either standing, sitting, or lying down.\n\n A player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice\n versa, by announcement.\n\n When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e changes to\n sitting. A player is ineligible to become Trial Judge of a CFJ\n if e is not standing.\n\n When a player registers, e is lying down.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts may (without 2 objections) change a\n player to lying down. E is encouraged to do this only if e\n expects the player to judge CFJs slowly or not at all.\n\n When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all\n sitting players change to standing. The Clerk of the Courts\n shall only do so when all CFJs awaiting trial judge assignment\n have no players eligible to be assigned, and at least one of\n them has at least one player ineligible solely to not standing;\n e shall list all CFJs in the first set, and at least one in the\n second (noting at least one of the relevant players). However,\n failing to meet these requirements does not deprive the Notice\n of effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406027,'rcs','00000001.00000382',103,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Always a Speaker','Always a Speaker',1184160881,'Rule 103/2 (Power=3)\nAlways a Speaker\n\n There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker.\n No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never\n be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then\n the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes\n the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(406028,'rcs','00000001.00000382',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1184160881,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (11 July 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * ratify any official report (rule 1551)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\n * serve on board of appeals (rule 911)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * mutually exclusive with Clerk of the Courts (rule 1450)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406029,'rcs','00000001.00000382',1006,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Offices','Offices',1184160881,'Rule 1006/18 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If an officer fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a\n certain official duty, than the player who executed the order\n may perform the duty as if e were the officer.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): this rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406030,'rcs','00000001.00000383',889,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1184161259,'Rule 889/15 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n[Cross-references (11 July 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * recuse judge who is tardy on judgement (rule 408)\n * recuse judge who is tardy on motion (rule 1826)\n * archive opinion with CFJ (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * appoint a member to a Thesis Committee (rule 1370)\n * inform defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)\n * delay assignment of Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007'),(406031,'rcs','00000001.00000383',591,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Legal Judgements','Legal Judgements',1184161259,'Rule 591/19 (Power=1)\nLegal Judgements\n\n The judge of a CFJ judges it by publishing eir judgement, along\n with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers\n relevant.\n\n For a trial judge, a judgement is exactly one of the following:\n TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406032,'rcs','00000001.00000383',1826,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Motions','Motions',1184161259,'Rule 1826/2 (Power=1)\nMotions\n\n A motion is a formal request made by a player to the judge of a\n CFJ. A motion is made by announcement, which must clearly\n identify the CFJ to which the motion applies.\n\n The judge of a CFJ must either grant or deny each motion that\n applies to that CFJ within five days of it being made. If a\n judge fails to grant or deny an applicable motion within five\n days of it being made, the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse the\n judge and assign a new one. If a motion is made after a case\n has been judged, and the original judge of that case is not\n active or is not a player, then the Clerk of the Courts shall\n assign a new judge.\n\n A judge grants or denies a motion by publishing eir\n determination, along with any arguments, evidence, or other\n material that e considers relevant. The effect of granting a\n motion depends on its nature, but generally amounts to requiring\n the judge to perform as requested by the motion. A denied\n motion has no further effect.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406033,'rcs','00000001.00000383',1805,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Appellate Orders','Appellate Orders',1184161259,'Rule 1805/3 (Power=1)\nAppellate Orders\n\n Appellate Orders are executed by being published by the Lead\n Judge of a Board of Appeals. The Lead Judge must certify in the\n execution that the order is executed by the concurrence of the\n majority of the Justices comprising that Board of Appeals;\n failure to do so deprives the Order of effect.\n\n Appellate Orders are not subject to appeal. However, upon a\n judicial finding that the required certification was falsely\n provided, the Clerk of the Courts shall vacate the Order which\n was accompanied by that false certification.\n\n Appellate Orders are valid only if addressed to:\n a) The Clerk of the Courts in eir Official capacity;\n b) an Order issued by the Clerk of the Courts in eir Official\n Capacity;\n c) The Judge of the CFJ which that Board of Appeals was\n convened to consider, or any Order issued by that Judge in\n that particular CFJ; or\n d) any combination of the above.\n All other Appellate Orders are presumptively invalid.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts shall publish each Appellate Order as\n soon as possible after receiving it from the Board of Appeal\n which executed it.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n validity of Appellate Orders.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406034,'rcs','00000001.00000383',2136,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007','Contests','Contests',1184161259,'Rule 2136/5 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score, which is always an\n integer. When a player registers, eir score is set to zero.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per month\n to one or more contestants, unless e was contestmaster of a\n different contest for at least 15 days of the previous month.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may announce this fact. If\n this announcement is correct, then the following events happen:\n\n 1. The announcing player wins the game.\n 2. Each player\'s score is set to zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007'),(406035,'rcs','00000001.00000384',2149,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1184768416,'Rule 2149/1 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n Players SHALL NOT deliberately or recklessly make false\n statements in any public message. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406036,'rcs','00000001.00000385',2126,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1184769014,'Rule 2126/11 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be\n affected except as described in this rule.\n\n When a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s voting\n limit on ordinary proposals is reset to its default value.\n\n Each VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a\n player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses\n a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then\n the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer\n gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s\n adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in\n the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one\n Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same\n week).\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if\n any) who held that office for the majority of that month\n gains two Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces\n within a week after the end of the month that the officer\n performed eir duties poorly or not at all.\n\n c) A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation\n Period gains one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by\n the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for\n failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one\n Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified). All changes to voting limits are applied\n at the end of the week, in the order the VCs were spent, after\n which any fractional voting limits are rounded to the nearest\n integer (nearest odd integer if the fractional part is 0.5).\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own voting limit on ordinary proposals by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by one\n (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s voting limit on ordinary proposals by ten\n percent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406037,'rcs','00000001.00000385',2155,'Created by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Parties','Parties',1184769014,'Rule 2155/0 (Power=1)\nParties\n\n Each player\'s Party is the color of VC that e possesses the most\n of. Ties are broken in favor of the color that comes first in\n alphabetical order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406038,'rcs','00000001.00000385',2136,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Contests','Contests',1184769014,'Rule 2136/7 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score.\n\n Each player\'s score is an integer. Points can only be awarded\n in integer amounts.\n\n When a player registers or deregisters, eir score becomes zero.\n\n A contest is an agreement that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of scores and contests. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n includes each player\'s score.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e\n was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 3 days of\n the previous week.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[Cross-references (18 July 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * report scores (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406039,'rcs','00000001.00000386',1586,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1184769434,'Rule 1586/3 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still\n define that entity but with different properties, then that\n entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent\n is possible under the new definitions.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406040,'rcs','00000001.00000386',1023,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1184769434,'Rule 1023/20 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The term \"number\" means \"real number\".\n\n (b) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" means \"within seven days\".\n\n (c) The term \"random\" means a choice drawn with a process whose\n probability distribution among the possible outcomes is\n reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n (d) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (e) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406041,'rcs','00000001.00000386',1769,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Holidays','Holidays',1184769434,'Rule 1769/4 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT publish any\n Call for Judgement, Judgement, notice of Appeal, Decision of\n Appeals Boards, or Opinion.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406042,'rcs','00000001.00000386',1607,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1184769434,'Rule 1607/13 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly\ndistributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this\nconstitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only\nif the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[Cross-references (1 July 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * track Proposal Pool (rule 106)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406043,'rcs','00000001.00000386',1810,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Satisfying Orders','Satisfying Orders',1184769434,'Rule 1810/6 (Power=1)\nSatisfying Orders\n\n An Order requiring an entity to perform an action is satisfied\n when that entity performs that action. Other Rules may define\n other ways for Orders to be satisfied. Except when otherwise\n specified, a single action can result in the satisfaction of at\n most one Order. If an action would satisfy more than one Order,\n and no other specification is made, the Action satisfies the\n oldest Order which it would satisfy.\n\n A player SHALL NOT willfully perform contrary to a valid\n unsatisfied order, either through action or inaction.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3954 (Elysion), Dec. 13 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406044,'rcs','00000001.00000387',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1184770555,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[Cross-references (18 July 2007): the Assessor\' duties are:\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)\n * report VCs (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406045,'rcs','00000001.00000387',683,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Agoran Decisions','Voting on Agoran Decisions',1184770555,'Rule 683/14 (Power=3)\nVoting on Agoran Decisions\n\n An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a\n ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice\n indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be\n valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:\n\n (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the\n decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the\n time of submission.\n\n (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.\n\n (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the\n voter.\n\n (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the\n voting period.\n\n Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the\n first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the\n entity\'s voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an\n entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is\n zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran\n decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.\n\n The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots\n selecting that option.\n\n Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of\n ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would\n loosen the constraints specified by this rule.\n\n[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To \"clearly identif[y] the matter\nto be decided\" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406046,'rcs','00000001.00000387',106,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1184770555,'Rule 106/7 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor\n distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption\n index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of\n less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406047,'rcs','00000001.00000387',1950,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Democratic Proposals','Voting on Democratic Proposals',1184770555,'Rule 1950/19 (Power=3)\nVoting on Democratic Proposals\n\n The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities\n that were active first-class players at the start of its voting\n period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic\n proposal is one.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406048,'rcs','00000001.00000387',2156,'Created by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting on Ordinary Proposals','Voting on Ordinary Proposals',1184770555,'Rule 2156/0 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Proposals\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir base voting limit on\n ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class player\n is one, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. BVLOP cannot\n be modified.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir volatile voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. VVLOP can be modified by the\n action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n power of this rule, but not by any other means.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir effective voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of each week, each\n player\'s EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to an integer,\n breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is set to the\n same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any other\n means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOP.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir\n EVLOP at the start of its voting period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406049,'rcs','00000001.00000387',2126,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1184770555,'Rule 2126/12 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be\n affected except as described in this rule.\n\n When a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n Each VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a\n player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses\n a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then\n the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer\n gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s\n adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in\n the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one\n Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same\n week).\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if\n any) who held that office for the majority of that month\n gains two Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces\n within a week after the end of the month that the officer\n performed eir duties poorly or not at all.\n\n c) A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation\n Period gains one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by\n the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player whose judgement is overturned, or who is recused for\n failing to judge within eir Deliberation Period, loses one\n Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406050,'rcs','00000001.00000388',2148,'Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007','Ambassador','Ambassador',1184770889,'Rule 2148/0 (Power=2)\nAmbassador\n\n The Ambassador is an office; Its holder is Agora\'s liaison to\n its Protectorates. The Ambassador\'s report shall include a\n listing of Protectorates as well as a list of recent events\n related to those Protectorates. On a minimum of a monthly basis,\n the Ambassador shall review each Protectorate to ensure it meets\n the requirements of a Protectorate.\n\n The Ambassador may act on behalf of Agora for an action that is\n permitted of Agora in the Protectorate\'s ruleset, with the\n exception of direct changes to that Protectorate\'s ruleset as\n described above. Any Player may, with Agoran consent, require\n that the Ambassador act or not act in a specified fashion in\n relation to a Protectorate.\n\n[Cross-references (18 July 2007): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * report on Protectorates (rule 2148)\n * check that Protectorate still meets requirements (rule 2148)\n * act on behalf of Agora in Protectorate (rule 2148)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007'),(406051,'rcs','00000001.00000389',478,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Fora','Fora',1184807231,'Rule 478/18 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\nall Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time at\nwhich the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the\nrecipient\'s normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir\nprivate machine or eir private account on a shared machine (but not\nthe shared machine itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(406052,'rcs','00000001.00000390',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1184845095,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[Cross-references (18 June 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * report activity (rule 2130)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * deregister convict in disgrace (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406053,'rcs','00000001.00000390',2147,'Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007','Protectorates','Protectorates',1184845095,'Rule 2147/0 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the Protectorate).\n\n In order to become a Protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. It\n also must allow Agora unrestricted access to make changes to its\n ruleset. A player of said nomic may then cause that nomic to\n become a Protectorate by announcement to the public forum. A\n nomic that no longer meets these requirements ceases to be a\n Protectorate.\n\n Agora shall treat a Protectorate in a benevolent fashion, making\n changes to that nomic\'s ruleset only for the purpose of\n assisting that nomic in its growth and enabling its longevity.\n Agora may only make changes to a Protectorate\'s ruleset through\n a Proposal with an Adoption Index of 2 or more, although this\n does not prohibit changes made to a Protectorate nomic by one or\n more of its players (or closest equivalent) according to the\n rules of that Protectorate.\n\n[CFJ 1704 (called 17 July 2007): If a nomic is a binding agreement\ngoverned by the rules of Agora, then the possibility of direct\nmodification of that agreement by an Agoran proposal satisfies the\nrequirement for protectoratehood that it allow Agora unrestricted\naccess to make changes to its ruleset.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007'),(406054,'rcs','00000001.00000391',2150,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007','Personhood','Personhood',1184864007,'Rule 2150/1 (Power=2)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007'),(406055,'rcs','00000001.00000392',2145,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007','Partnerships','Partnerships',1185024545,'Rule 2145/2 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n set of its non-partnership members with the bases of each of its\n partnership members. Where circularity occurs in this\n definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets that\n provide consistency.\n\n A partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a\n person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007'),(406056,'rcs','00000001.00000393',1023,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1185195397,'Rule 1023/21 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" means \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"random\" means a choice drawn with a process whose\n probability distribution among the possible outcomes is\n reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a\n uniform distribution if not otherwise specified.\n\n (c) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (d) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007'),(406057,'rcs','00000001.00000394',2156,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Voting on Ordinary Proposals','Voting on Ordinary Proposals',1185195496,'Rule 2156/1 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Proposals\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir base voting limit on\n ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class player\n is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. BVLOP\n cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir volatile voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. VVLOP can be modified by the\n action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n power of this rule, but not by any other means.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir effective voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of each week, each\n player\'s EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to an integer,\n breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is set to the\n same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any other\n means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOP.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir\n EVLOP at the start of its voting period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406058,'rcs','00000001.00000395',106,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1185195581,'Rule 106/8 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406059,'rcs','00000001.00000396',649,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1185195661,'Rule 649/20 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report shall\n include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person\n Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007'),(406060,'rcs','00000001.00000397',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1185195956,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (23 July 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * ratify any official report (rule 1551)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\n * serve on board of appeals (rule 911)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * mutually exclusive with Clerk of the Courts (rule 1450)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406061,'rcs','00000001.00000397',1051,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1185195956,'Rule 1051/17 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report shall include the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (23 June 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * assign number to rule (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(406062,'rcs','00000001.00000397',889,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007','The Clerk of the Courts','The Clerk of the Courts',1185195956,'Rule 889/15 (Power=1)\nThe Clerk of the Courts\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is\n responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement\n (CFJs) and Appeals.\n\n[Cross-references (23 July 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not publish judicial material during holiday (rule 1769)\n * accept submission of CFJ (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2132)\n * assign Trial Judge to a CFJ (rule 1868)\n * remove a player from the standing court (rule 1871)\n * publish Notice of Rotation (rule 1871)\n * recuse judge who is tardy on judgement (rule 408)\n * recuse judge who is tardy on motion (rule 1826)\n * archive opinion with CFJ (rule 1365)\n * announce change of Appellate judge (rule 1564)\n * select board of appeals (rule 911)\n * reassign CFJ when judgement is overturned (rule 1447)\n * announce result of appeal (rule 1447)\n * stay appealed Judicial Order (rule 1804)\n * vacate falsely-certified Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * publish Appellate Order (rule 1805)\n * inform defendant of a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)\n * delay assignment of Trial Judge to a Civil CFJ (rule 1742)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 406 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 889, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1441, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), Feb. 23 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007'),(406063,'rcs','00000001.00000397',1367,'Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Degrees','Degrees',1185195956,'Rule 1367/8 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the\n action of an instrumennt with power greater than or equal to the\n power of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406064,'rcs','00000001.00000398',869,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1185200532,'Rule 869/21 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb\n \"to be registered\" means to become a player, and the verb \"to be\n deregistered\" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb \"to\n register\" or \"to deregister\" is used without an explicit direct\n object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective\n \"registered\", or its fuller form \"registered as a player\",\n describes those who are players.\n\n A person is permitted to register or deregister unless\n specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by\n announcement.\n\n Whenever a player deregisters, e is prohibited from registering\n for the next thirty days.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1648 (called 1 May 2007): Requesting permission to register is to\nbe interpreted as an announcement attempting to register.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406065,'rcs','00000001.00000398',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1185200532,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[Cross-references (23 July 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * report activity (rule 2130)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406066,'rcs','00000001.00000398',1769,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Holidays','Holidays',1185200532,'Rule 1769/5 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406067,'rcs','00000001.00000398',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1185200532,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (23 July 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * ratify any official report (rule 1551)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * mutually exclusive with Clerk of the Courts (rule 1450)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406068,'rcs','00000001.00000398',1377,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','The Herald','The Herald',1185200532,'Rule 1377/22 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of marks of honour and shame relating to Agora.\n\n[Cross-references (23 July 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406069,'rcs','00000001.00000398',2126,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1185200532,'Rule 2126/13 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be\n affected except as described in this rule.\n\n When a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n Each VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a\n player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses\n a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then\n the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer\n gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s\n adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in\n the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one\n Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same\n week).\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if\n any) who held that office for the majority of that month\n gains two Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces\n within a week after the end of the month that the officer\n performed eir duties poorly or not at all.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by\n the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a\n judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406070,'rcs','00000001.00000398',1794,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Classes of Orders','Classes of Orders',1185200532,'Rule 1794/11 (Power=1)\nClasses of Orders\n\n Each Order is of exactly one of the following classes. If an\n Order could be of more than one of these classes, then it is of\n the first class that matches.\n\n (a) A Legislative Order is an Order executed as part of the\n effect of the adoption of a Proposal.\n\n (b) A Timing Order is an Order which may be executed by any\n person by announcement and directed at any entity. A\n timing order is valid if and only if it orders the entity\n to perform, as soon as possible, a duty specifically\n required of em by the Rules that does not otherwise have a\n specified timing requirement, or for which the otherwise\n specified timing requirement will have been exceeded as\n soon as possible after the Order is executed.\n\n No other types of Orders are valid.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3869 (General Chaos), May 24 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3896 (Elysion), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4048 (Peekee), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4137 (harvel), Apr. 5 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4810 (Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5012 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5017 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406071,'rcs','00000001.00000398',991,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1185200532,'Rule 991/8 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[Cross-references (23 July 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * report posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406072,'rcs','00000001.00000398',1868,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1185200532,'Rule 1868/7 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge;\n this is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as\n judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any\n existing judge.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL\n make such an assignment as soon as possible.\n\n Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to\n be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active\n first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a\n judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to\n be judge if already assigned.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406073,'rcs','00000001.00000398',1871,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1185200532,'Rule 1871/13 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Each player is either standing, sitting, or supine; this status\n is known as eir posture. The CotC\'s report includes each\n player\'s posture. When an entity becomes a player, e is\n initially supine. A player CAN change emself from sitting to\n supine, or from supine to sitting, by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. The CotC SHALL NOT assign a sitting player to be\n the judge of any judicial case. If the CotC has assigned a\n sitting player as judge, and that player is still the judge of\n that case, the CotC CAN recuse that judge from that case by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406074,'rcs','00000001.00000398',2157,'Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1185200532,'Rule 2157/0 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members. By this\n mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message. A\n judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406075,'rcs','00000001.00000398',2158,'Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1185200532,'Rule 2158/0 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n Within a judicial case, one or more judicial questions may\n arise. Each judicial question is either inapplicable (default)\n or applicable; this is not a persistent status but is evaluated\n instantaneously. Each judicial question either is open\n (default), suspended, or has a particular judgement; this is a\n persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The\n possible types of judgement for a judicial question vary\n according to the type of question.\n\n When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question,\n it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement\n to that question by announcement. Whenever there is a judge\n assigned to a judicial case with an applicable open question,\n the judge SHALL assign such a judgement to the question as soon\n as possible.\n\n Whenever a judicial case has a judicial question that has\n remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been\n assigned to the case, continuously for the past week, the CotC\n CAN recuse that judge by announcement. Whenever a judicial case\n has a judicial question that has remained applicable and open,\n while the same judge has been assigned to the case, continuously\n for the past two weeks, the CotC SHALL so recuse the judge as\n soon as possible.\n\n Among the possible judgements of a judicial question, some\n subset of them are appropriate. Judgements are appropriate only\n where so defined by the rules. A judge SHALL NOT assign an\n inappropriate judgement. Where more than one appropriate\n judgement is available, the choice between them is at the\n judge\'s discretion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406076,'rcs','00000001.00000398',591,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1185200532,'Rule 591/20 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable\n of being accurately described as either false or true, at the\n time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,\n and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,\n uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot\n constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406077,'rcs','00000001.00000398',1504,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1185200532,'Rule 1504/10 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly\n identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be\n a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant\n allegedly breached the rules.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and\n substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active judgements.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406078,'rcs','00000001.00000398',911,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1185200532,'Rule 911/16 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406079,'rcs','00000001.00000398',1742,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1185200532,'Rule 1742/9 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406080,'rcs','00000001.00000399',478,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007','Fora','Fora',1185245221,'Rule 478/18 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n A Forum\'s Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public\n (default null). A forum\'s publicity may not be changed except\n as described in this rule.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\nall Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time at\nwhich the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the\nrecipient\'s normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir\nprivate machine or eir private account on a shared machine (but not\nthe shared machine itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007'),(406081,'rcs','00000001.00000400',2147,'Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007','Protectorates','Protectorates',1185245670,'Rule 2147/0 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the Protectorate).\n\n In order to become a Protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. It\n also must allow Agora unrestricted access to make changes to its\n ruleset. A player of said nomic may then cause that nomic to\n become a Protectorate by announcement to the public forum. A\n nomic that no longer meets these requirements ceases to be a\n Protectorate.\n\n Agora shall treat a Protectorate in a benevolent fashion, making\n changes to that nomic\'s ruleset only for the purpose of\n assisting that nomic in its growth and enabling its longevity.\n Agora may only make changes to a Protectorate\'s ruleset through\n a Proposal with an Adoption Index of 2 or more, although this\n does not prohibit changes made to a Protectorate nomic by one or\n more of its players (or closest equivalent) according to the\n rules of that Protectorate.\n\n[CFJ 1704 (called 17 July 2007): If a nomic is a binding agreement\ngoverned by the rules of Agora, then the possibility of direct\nmodification of that agreement by an Agoran proposal satisfies the\nrequirement for protectoratehood that it allow Agora unrestricted\naccess to make changes to its ruleset.]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nallowing the nomic\'s ruleset to be changed by means of an Agoran\nproposal with AI >= 2.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007'),(406082,'rcs','00000001.00000401',1450,'Amended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1185335402,'Rule 1450/6 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n The following sets of positions are mutually exclusive:\n\n a) Promotor and Assessor\n b) Speaker and Clerk of the Courts\n\n A player holding two or more positions within one of these sets\n is removed from all but one of them. If one of them is the\n Speakership, then e retains it; otherwise, e retains the\n position e came to hold most recently.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all rules governing offices.\n\n[CFJ 1705 (called 18 July 2007): It is possible for a person to hold\ntwo \"mutually exclusive\" positions simultaneously, albeit only for an\ninfinitesemal period, because rule 1450 does not prevent this\nsituation arising but removes the person from one of the positions\nwhen the situation has occurred.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406083,'rcs','00000001.00000402',1006,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007','Offices','Offices',1185417087,'Rule 1006/19 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n If a Timing Order directed at an office is not satisfied on\n time, or if the office is vacant, then the player who executed\n the order may perform the duty as if e held that office.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): this rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007'),(406084,'rcs','00000001.00000403',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1185417228,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825: Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406085,'rcs','00000001.00000404',2148,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Ambassador','Ambassador',1185418203,'Rule 2148/1 (Power=2)\nAmbassador\n\n The ambassador is an office, responsible for relations with\n foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (25 July 2007): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406086,'rcs','00000001.00000404',2147,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Protectorates','Protectorates',1185418203,'Rule 2147/1 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. For this purpose, the nomic may\n specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided\n that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the\n specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a\n protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a\n protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report shall include a list of all\n protectorates, with contact details for each, and for each the\n forum in which it is most appropriate to proclaim protective\n decrees that target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406087,'rcs','00000001.00000404',2159,'Created by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1185418203,'Rule 2159/0 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument with power 2 or\n greater generally can, as part of its effect, initiate a\n protective decree. The initiating instrument must specify the\n target protectorate and the changes to be made to it. Any\n ambiguity in the specification of a protective decree causes it\n to be void and without effect. This is the only mechanism by\n which a protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador shall proclaim it to the target nomic,\n in whatever forum is most suitable for this purpose. The decree\n takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406088,'rcs','00000001.00000405',2154,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1185418317,'Rule 2154/1 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any Player may make an active Player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the\n office, with Agoran Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as\n above, then any other active player may be nominated for the\n position with eir own consent by announcement, during the\n minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for\n Agoran Consent.\n\n If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting\n nominee, then the attempt to achieve Agoran Consent fails, and\n the IADoP shall initiate an Agoran Decision to determine the new\n office holder, meanwhile no further attempt to achieve Agoran\n Consent for the change shall be valid. The valid options for\n the decision are the nominees, quorum is a minimum of three and\n the number of active players (rules to the contrary\n notwithstanding), eligible voters are the active players, and\n the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving the\n decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from the set of\n nominees which each received the largest number of votes; this\n chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the\n valid notice.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007'),(406089,'rcs','00000001.00000406',2126,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1185418402,'Rule 2126/14 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be\n affected except as described in this rule.\n\n When a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n Each VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a\n player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses\n a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then\n the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer\n gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s\n adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in\n the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one\n Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same\n week).\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, the player (if\n any) who held that office for the majority of that month\n gains two Green VCs, unless the Speaker publicly announces\n within a week after the end of the month that the officer\n performed eir duties poorly or not at all.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by\n the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a\n judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406090,'rcs','00000001.00000407',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1185979294,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (1 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * mutually exclusive with Clerk of the Courts (rule 1450)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406091,'rcs','00000001.00000407',1551,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Ratification','Ratification',1185979294,'Rule 1551/8 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part\n of an official report, without objection.\n\n When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that\n the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the\n time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any\n messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,\n or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n Where part of an official report has been the subject of a\n ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is\n part of the same official report.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406092,'rcs','00000001.00000408',1023,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1185979356,'Rule 1023/22 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" means \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406093,'rcs','00000001.00000409',1006,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Offices','Offices',1185979852,'Rule 1006/20 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): this rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406094,'rcs','00000001.00000409',2160,'Created by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Deputisation','Deputisation',1185979852,'Rule 2160/0 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced at least two days earlier that e\n intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the\n particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406095,'rcs','00000001.00000411',217,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Interpreting the Rules','Interpreting the Rules',1185980423,'Rule 217/6 (Power=3)\nInterpreting the Rules\n\n When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules\n takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or\n unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,\n past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the\n game.\n\n[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need\nnot necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or\nJustices given in past CFJs.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995\nInfected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406096,'rcs','00000001.00000411',591,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1185980423,'Rule 591/20 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable\n of being accurately described as either false or true, at the\n time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,\n and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,\n uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot\n constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406097,'rcs','00000001.00000412',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1185980504,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (1 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406098,'rcs','00000001.00000412',1450,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Separation of Powers','Separation of Powers',1185980504,'Rule 1450/7 (Power=2)\nSeparation of Powers\n\n Any change in officeholdings that would result in a single\n entity holding the offices of promotor and assessor\n simultaneously is INVALID. This rule takes precedence over all\n other rules regarding offices.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406099,'rcs','00000001.00000413',1006,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Offices','Offices',1186004295,'Rule 1006/20 (Power=1)\nOffices\n\n The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may\n be held by more than one player. Each office that would\n otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the\n Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that\n office.\n\n The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the\n office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406100,'rcs','00000001.00000414',2154,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1186064293,'Rule 2154/2 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any Player may make an active Player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the\n office, with Agoran Consent, provided:\n (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the\n previous 30 days, and\n (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the\n announcement of intent is made.\n\n If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as\n above, then any other active player may be nominated for the\n position with eir own consent by announcement, during the\n minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for\n Agoran Consent.\n\n If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting\n nominee, then officeholding cannot be changed by means of this\n Agoran consent (even if consent was achieved), and the IADoP\n SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to\n determine the new officeholder. Until this Agoran decision is\n resolved, the office cannot change hands by the mechanism of\n this rule.\n\n In the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, the\n valid options are the nominees, quorum is the lesser of three\n and the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players,\n and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving\n the decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from the set of\n nominees which each received the largest number of votes; this\n chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the\n valid notice.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007'),(406101,'rcs','00000001.00000415',1504,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1186064358,'Rule 1504/11 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly\n identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be\n a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant\n allegedly breached the rules.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and\n substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007'),(406102,'rcs','00000001.00000416',2141,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1186065370,'Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406103,'rcs','00000001.00000416',1030,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power','Precedence between Rules with Equal Power',1186065370,'Rule 1030/6 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Equal Power\n\n If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one\n another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes\n precedence.\n\n If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of\n itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or\n takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such\n provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining\n precedence.\n\n If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their\n precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for\n determining precedence relations, then the determinations of\n the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical\n method for determining precedence.\n\n If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another\n or defer to one another, then the numerical method again\n governs.\n\n[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference\nclause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not\nprevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the\nRule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]\n\n[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied\nto resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule\nis inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher\nprecedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406104,'rcs','00000001.00000416',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1186065370,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule\nChange.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406105,'rcs','00000001.00000416',2161,'Created by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1186065370,'Rule 2161/0 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule (or, if\n there is no such player, the Speaker) SHALL assign an ID\n number to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report SHALL include the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406106,'rcs','00000001.00000416',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1186065370,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default assigner of ID numbers (rule 2161)\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * veto VC salary (rule 2126)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406107,'rcs','00000001.00000416',1051,'Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1186065370,'Rule 1051/17 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly Report shall include the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly Report shall include the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002'),(406108,'rcs','00000001.00000416',1681,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1186065370,'Rule 1681/11 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type\n of change, the date on which the change took effect, the\n mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was\n changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its\n proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406109,'rcs','00000001.00000416',1607,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1186065370,'Rule 1607/14 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly\ndistributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this\nconstitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only\nif the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * track Proposal Pool (rule 106)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406110,'rcs','00000001.00000416',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1186065370,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * report posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406111,'rcs','00000001.00000417',869,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1186066158,'Rule 869/22 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and\n Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity\n whose citizenship is Registered. \"To register\" and \"to become a\n player\" are synonymous with \"to flip one\'s citizenship to\n Registered\"; \"to deregister\" and \"to be deregistered\" are\n synonymous with \"to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null\".\n\n A person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406112,'rcs','00000001.00000417',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1186066158,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406113,'rcs','00000001.00000417',2130,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Activity','Activity',1186066158,'Rule 2130/6 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar.\n\n A player may flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player may flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406114,'rcs','00000001.00000417',478,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1186066158,'Rule 478/19 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752: Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to\nall Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813: A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831: The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time at\nwhich the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866: A message is \"received\" when the message enters the\nrecipient\'s normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir\nprivate machine or eir private account on a shared machine (but not\nthe shared machine itself, if the recipient does not control it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406115,'rcs','00000001.00000417',2162,'Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Switches','Switches',1186066158,'Rule 2162/0 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a\n switch, and specify the following:\n\n a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.\n No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.\n\n b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,\n exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other\n values are possible for instances of that switch.\n\n c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.\n That officer\'s report includes the value of each instance of\n that switch whose value is not Null.\n\n At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one\n possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a\n switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.\n If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a\n possible value, it comes to have its default value.\n\n \"To flip an instance of a switch\" is to make it come to have a\n given value. \"To become X\" (where X is a possible value of\n exactly one of the subject\'s switches) is to flip that switch to\n X.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406116,'rcs','00000001.00000417',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1186066158,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406117,'rcs','00000001.00000417',1871,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1186066158,'Rule 1871/14 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, and\n Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n A player may flip eir posture from Sitting to Supine, or vice\n versa, by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. The CotC SHALL NOT assign a sitting player to be\n the judge of any judicial case. If the CotC has assigned a\n sitting player as judge, and that player is still the judge of\n that case, the CotC CAN recuse that judge from that case by\n announcement.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406118,'rcs','00000001.00000418',1607,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1186066725,'Rule 1607/15 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly\ndistributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this\nconstitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only\nif the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406119,'rcs','00000001.00000418',2126,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1186066725,'Rule 2126/15 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a measure of each player\'s ability to\n affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT be\n affected except as described in this rule.\n\n When a player registers or deregisters, e loses all eir VCs.\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n Each VC has a color (Gray if not otherwise specified). If a\n player loses a color of VC that e does not possess, then e loses\n a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then\n the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer\n gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s\n adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in\n the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one\n Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same\n week).\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless the\n Speaker announces within a week after the end of that month\n that that player performed that office\'s duties poorly or not\n at all.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by\n the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a\n judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406120,'rcs','00000001.00000418',649,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1186066725,'Rule 649/21 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406121,'rcs','00000001.00000418',1922,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1186066725,'Rule 1922/14 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any player who wins the game.\n The Herald\'s monthly report shall record how the player\n won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406122,'rcs','00000001.00000418',2148,'Retitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1186066725,'Rule 2148/1 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is an office, responsible for relations with\n foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (25 July 2007): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406123,'rcs','00000001.00000419',2146,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Indices','Indices',1186067392,'Rule 2146/1 (Power=2)\nIndices\n\n Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a\n total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum\n element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called\n positive infinity or unanimity.\n\n The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The\n ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The\n ratio of zero to any index is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406124,'rcs','00000001.00000419',1728,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1186067392,'Rule 1728/16 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An announcement of intent to perform a dependent action,\n unambiguously describing the action and method of dependent\n action, initiates the Agoran decision of whether to approve the\n action. For this decision:\n\n (a) The vote collector is the announcer.\n\n (b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.\n\n (c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately\n before it is resolved, whichever comes first.\n\n (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active\n first-class players at the start of the voting period,\n except for the vote collector, and any entities disqualified\n by the rule specifying that the action can be performed\n dependently.\n\n (e) The voting limit of each eligible voter is one.\n\n (f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if\n it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or (if it has\n an objection and/or majority index) less than four days ago.\n\n (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs\n the action upon resolving the decision.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action can be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406125,'rcs','00000001.00000419',2124,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Methods of Dependent Actions','Methods of Dependent Actions',1186067392,'Rule 2124/4 (Power=1)\nMethods of Dependent Actions\n\n The following methods of dependent actions are defined:\n\n (a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is N.\n \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1 Supporter\".\n\n (b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection index\n is N. \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\".\n\n (c) With N Agoran Consent. For this method, the majority index\n is N. \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with \"With 1/2\n Agoran Consent\".\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406126,'rcs','00000001.00000419',107,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1186067392,'Rule 107/5 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The information required in the notice\nneed not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406127,'rcs','00000001.00000419',208,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1186067392,'Rule 208/4 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It clearly identifies the options available.\n\n (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406128,'rcs','00000001.00000419',955,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Determining the Will of Agora','Determining the Will of Agora',1186067392,'Rule 955/11 (Power=3)\nDetermining the Will of Agora\n\n The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows.\n\n (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number\n of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than\n quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the\n remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved\n quorum.\n\n (b) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the\n voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the\n strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1,\n and greater than or equal to the decision\'s adoption index,\n then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action:\n\n (1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to\n the objection index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support\n index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED.\n\n (3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined\n strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to\n the majority index (if any), then the outcome is\n REJECTED.\n\n (4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED.\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is\ndetermined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations\ndescribed in rule 955.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993\nAmended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993\nAmended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993\nAmended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406129,'rcs','00000001.00000419',879,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Quorum','Quorum',1186067392,'Rule 879/26 (Power=2)\nQuorum\n\n Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of\n eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision),\n rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than\n N, in which case quorum is N, or the decision is whether to\n approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero).\n\n[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not\ncount towards quorum.]\n\n[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision\nchanges as the set of eligible voters changes.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal \"A Separation of Powers\" (Steve, Without\n Objection), Apr. 20 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005\nAmended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406130,'rcs','00000001.00000420',2126,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1186067527,'Rule 2126/16 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT\n be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation\n that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs\n are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer\n gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s\n adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in\n the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one\n Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same\n week).\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless the\n Speaker announces within a week after the end of that month\n that that player performed that office\'s duties poorly or not\n at all.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) When an officer forfeits eir salary due to announcement by\n the Speaker, e loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a\n judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007'),(406131,'rcs','00000001.00000421',1504,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1186172380,'Rule 1504/11 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly\n identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be\n a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant\n allegedly breached the rules.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and\n substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007'),(406132,'rcs','00000001.00000421',2148,'Retitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1186172380,'Rule 2148/1 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is an office, responsible for relations with\n foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[Cross-references (25 July 2007): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406133,'rcs','00000001.00000422',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1186536084,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406134,'rcs','00000001.00000422',1482,'Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power','Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power',1186536084,'Rule 1482/2 (Power=3)\nPrecedence between Rules with Unequal Power\n\n In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with\n the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower\n Power.\n\n No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule\n to stipulate any other means of determining precedence\n between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by\n the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.\n This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit\n such a change to the Ruleset.\n\n[CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between\nRules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the\nlower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence\nover Rule 1482.]\n\n[CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time\nof Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule\nof higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English\nmeaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does\nmust be decided on a case-by-case basis.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995\nInfected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007'),(406135,'rcs','00000001.00000422',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1186536084,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406136,'rcs','00000001.00000422',478,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1186536084,'Rule 478/19 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406137,'rcs','00000001.00000423',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1186536438,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406138,'rcs','00000001.00000424',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1186585282,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406139,'rcs','00000001.00000424',2130,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007','Activity','Activity',1186585282,'Rule 2130/7 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each player\'s activity last changed.\n\n A player may flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player may flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007'),(406140,'rcs','00000001.00000425',869,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1186585372,'Rule 869/23 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and\n Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity\n whose citizenship is Registered. \"To register\" and \"to become a\n player\" are synonymous with \"to flip one\'s citizenship to\n Registered\"; \"to deregister\" and \"to be deregistered\" are\n synonymous with \"to flip the subject\'s citizenship to Null\".\n\n A person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person can be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007'),(406141,'rcs','00000001.00000426',106,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1187015462,'Rule 106/8 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406142,'rcs','00000001.00000427',1377,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','The Herald','The Herald',1187016442,'Rule 1377/22 (Power=1)\nThe Herald\n\n The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping\n track of marks of honour and shame relating to Agora.\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1377, Jan. 17 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Jan. 29 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2503, Mar. 3 1996\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), Mar. 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3476 (Oerjan), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3901 (Schneidster), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3926 (Crito), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4124 (Elysion), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4272 (Murphy), 22 March 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(19) by Proposal 4852 (root), 18 March 2006\nAmended(20) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(21) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406143,'rcs','00000001.00000427',2135,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Advertising','Advertising',1187016442,'Rule 2135/2 (Power=1)\nAdvertising\n\n Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on\n the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is\n operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of\n the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall\n ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either\n corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to\n extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may\n add new correct information to the page at eir discretion.\n\n The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other\n suitable locations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406144,'rcs','00000001.00000427',2148,'Retitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1187016442,'Rule 2148/1 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is an office, responsible for relations with\n foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406145,'rcs','00000001.00000428',649,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1187016649,'Rule 649/22 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible\n for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007'),(406146,'rcs','00000001.00000429',2163,'Created by Proposal 5125 (Murphy), 13 August 2007','Retroactively colorize first-class VCs','Retroactively colorize first-class VCs',1187025037,'Rule 2163/0 (Power=2)\nRetroactively colorize first-class VCs\n\n One second after the creation of this rule, each of these\n players loses all eir Gray VCs, and gains an equal number of\n VCs of the specified colors (in order, repeating until the\n correct total gain is achieved):\n\n bd_ Blue\n BobTHJ Green, Red, Green\n Eris Red\n Murphy Red, Blue, Green, Red, Blue\n OscarMeyr Green\n Quazie Blue, Red\n root Red, Blue\n Wooble Blue\n Zefram Red, Red, Green, Red, Blue, Red, Red\n\n Two seconds after the creation of this rule, this rule is\n repealed.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other rules pertaining\n to VCs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5125 (Murphy), 13 August 2007'),(406147,'rcs','00000001.00000430',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1187025162,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * default assigner of ID numbers (rule 2161)\n * default officeholder (rule 1006)\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406148,'rcs','00000001.00000430',2126,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1187025162,'Rule 2126/17 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT\n be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation\n that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs\n are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an ordinary interested proposal is adopted, its proposer\n gains Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the proposal\'s\n adoption index (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in\n the same week), and each co-author of the proposal gains one\n Red VC (unless e gained VCs in this way earlier in the same\n week).\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless\n another person deputised for that office while that player\n held that office during that month.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that office\n during that month then that player loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a\n judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406149,'rcs','00000001.00000431',2147,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007','Protectorates','Protectorates',1187025253,'Rule 2147/2 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. For this purpose, the nomic may\n specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided\n that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the\n specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a\n protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a\n protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s monthly report shall include a list of all\n protectorates, with contact details for each, and for each the\n forum in which it is most appropriate to proclaim protective\n decrees that target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007'),(406150,'rcs','00000001.00000432',2126,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1187025425,'Rule 2126/18 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT\n be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation\n that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs\n are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a\n number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e\n has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a\n minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless\n another person deputised for that office while that player\n held that office during that month.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that office\n during that month then that player loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a\n judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007'),(406151,'rcs','00000001.00000433',2149,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1187025483,'Rule 2149/2 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A player SHALL NOT make a false statement in any public message\n while knowing that the statement is false or being reckless as\n to its veracity. Merely quoting a false statement does not\n constitute making it for the purposes of this rule. Any\n disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier attached to a\n statement constitutes part of the statement for the purposes of\n this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is what is\n significant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007'),(406152,'rcs','00000001.00000434',2164,'Created by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1187025687,'Rule 2164/0 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement.\n\n Judicial cases can generally be transferred between judges by\n this procedure: an entity (the transferee) CAN assign emself as\n the judge of a judicial case by announcement if:\n\n (a) the case has a judge assigned (the transferor); and\n\n (b) the transferor and the transferee are different entities;\n and\n\n (c) the transferor has previously publicly consented to the\n transfer and not publicly withdrawn that consent; and\n\n (d) the transferee is qualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case; and\n\n (e) the transferee immediately (in the same announcement)\n assigns a judgement to a judicial question in the case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406153,'rcs','00000001.00000435',1504,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1187025756,'Rule 1504/12 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly\n identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be\n a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant\n allegedly breached the rules.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and\n substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406154,'rcs','00000001.00000436',2161,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1187026044,'Rule 2161/1 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report SHALL include the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406155,'rcs','00000001.00000436',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1187026044,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * veto or rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406156,'rcs','00000001.00000436',1006,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Offices','Offices',1187026044,'Rule 1006/21 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information,\n then the officer shall publish that information at least once a\n month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs\n in the information or the officer receives a request for the\n information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy\n these last two requirements.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406157,'rcs','00000001.00000436',2154,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1187026044,'Rule 2154/3 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the\n office, with Agoran Consent, provided that the nominee consents\n to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.\n\n If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as\n above, then any other active player may be nominated for the\n position with eir own consent by announcement, during the\n minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for\n Agoran Consent.\n\n If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting\n nominee, then officeholding cannot be changed by means of this\n Agoran consent (even if consent was achieved), and the IADoP\n SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to\n determine the new officeholder. Until this Agoran decision is\n resolved, the office cannot change hands by the mechanism of\n this rule.\n\n In the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, the\n valid options are the nominees, quorum is the lesser of three\n and the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players,\n and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving\n the decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from the set of\n nominees which each received the largest number of votes; this\n chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the\n valid notice.\n\n If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder\n of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the\n IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the\n officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if\n consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another\n player changes the officeholder in this way during the following\n quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406158,'rcs','00000001.00000438',478,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1187211548,'Rule 478/19 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406159,'rcs','00000001.00000438',1504,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1187211548,'Rule 1504/12 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly\n identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be\n a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant\n allegedly breached the rules.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and\n substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007'),(406160,'rcs','00000001.00000439',2157,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1187363887,'Rule 2157/1 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members, or with the\n majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC.\n By this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where\n the rules state that an action is performed by sending a\n message. A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members\n of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel\n satisfies all of its obligations.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007'),(406161,'rcs','00000001.00000440',1504,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1187363953,'Rule 1504/13 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly\n identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be\n a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant\n allegedly breached the rules.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase after the defendant has been informed, the\n defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by announcement.\n\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and\n substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007'),(406162,'rcs','00000001.00000441',402,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1187364120,'Rule 402/19 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (17 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007'),(406163,'rcs','00000001.00000441',2019,'Retitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007','Rubber Stamp','Rubber Stamp',1187364120,'Rule 2019/9 (Power=2)\nRubber Stamp\n\n The Speaker may rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting\n period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped proposal is\n three, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007'),(406164,'rcs','00000001.00000442',1504,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1187364273,'Rule 1504/13 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly\n identifies the defendant and specifies the action (which may be\n a failure to perform another action) by which the defendant\n allegedly breached the rules.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase after the defendant has been informed, the\n defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant and\n substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the rules at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007'),(406165,'rcs','00000001.00000443',2126,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1187422776,'Rule 2126/18 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT\n be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation\n that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs\n are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a\n number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e\n has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a\n minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless\n another person deputised for that office while that player\n held that office during that month.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that office\n during that month then that player loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case because a\n judicial question has remained applicable, open, and unjudged\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1727 (called 17 August 2007): If a judge recuses emself, this\ndoes not trigger a Blue VC loss.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007'),(406166,'rcs','00000001.00000444',2165,'Created by Proposal 5139 (Murphy), 19 August 2007','Retroactively colorize second-class VCs','Retroactively colorize second-class VCs',1187553398,'Rule 2165/0 (Power=2)\nRetroactively colorize second-class VCs\n\n One second after the creation of this rule, each of these\n players loses all eir Gray VCs, and gains an equal number of VCs\n of the specified colors (in order, repeating until the correct\n total gain is achieved):\n\n Human Point Two Green, Blue, Green\n Pineapple Partnership Blue\n\n Two seconds after the creation of this rule, this rule is\n repealed.\n\n This rule takes precedence over all other rules pertaining to\n VCs.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5139 (Murphy), 19 August 2007'),(406167,'rcs','00000001.00000445',2149,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1187553534,'Rule 2149/3 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch with values Knight (default) and\n Knave, tracked by the Speaker.\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false.\n A knave SHOULD NOT publish statements that e believes are true.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007'),(406168,'rcs','00000001.00000446',2156,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007','Voting on Ordinary Proposals','Voting on Ordinary Proposals',1187553629,'Rule 2156/2 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Proposals\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir base voting limit on\n ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class player\n is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. BVLOP\n cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir volatile voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. VVLOP can be modified by the\n action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n power of this rule, but not by any other means.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir effective voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of each week, each\n player\'s EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to an integer,\n breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is set to the\n same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any other\n means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOP.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir\n EVLOP at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007'),(406169,'rcs','00000001.00000447',402,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1187554010,'Rule 402/20 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of\n this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora.\n Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on\n behalf of the speaker.\n\n If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game\n within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing\n any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless\n someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days.\n If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not\n challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later\n found to be illegal.\n\n A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot\n be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose\n objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure.\n\n[Cross-references (19 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * track truthiness (rule 2149)\n * rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\n * titular head of state (rule 402)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * installation due to winning (rule 402)\n * can\'t be replaced without consent (rule 402)\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007'),(406170,'rcs','00000001.00000450',1728,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1187625321,'Rule 1728/16 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An announcement of intent to perform a dependent action,\n unambiguously describing the action and method of dependent\n action, initiates the Agoran decision of whether to approve the\n action. For this decision:\n\n (a) The vote collector is the announcer.\n\n (b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.\n\n (c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately\n before it is resolved, whichever comes first.\n\n (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active\n first-class players at the start of the voting period,\n except for the vote collector, and any entities disqualified\n by the rule specifying that the action can be performed\n dependently.\n\n (e) The voting limit of each eligible voter is one.\n\n (f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if\n it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or (if it has\n an objection and/or majority index) less than four days ago.\n\n (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs\n the action upon resolving the decision.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action can be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406171,'rcs','00000001.00000450',107,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1187625321,'Rule 107/5 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406172,'rcs','00000001.00000451',478,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1187645909,'Rule 478/19 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406173,'rcs','00000001.00000452',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1187725184,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406174,'rcs','00000001.00000452',478,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1187725184,'Rule 478/19 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406175,'rcs','00000001.00000452',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1187725184,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406176,'rcs','00000001.00000454',208,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1187796808,'Rule 208/4 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It clearly identifies the options available.\n\n (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists\nadditional votes but does not give revised totals, this does not\nqualify as including a vote tally.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406177,'rcs','00000001.00000455',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1187821732,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406178,'rcs','00000001.00000455',478,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1187821732,'Rule 478/19 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406179,'rcs','00000001.00000455',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1187821732,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406180,'rcs','00000001.00000455',1769,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Holidays','Holidays',1187821732,'Rule 1769/5 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406181,'rcs','00000001.00000455',1742,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1187821732,'Rule 1742/9 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406182,'rcs','00000001.00000456',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1187889176,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406183,'rcs','00000001.00000456',2141,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Role and Attributes of Rules','Role and Attributes of Rules',1187889176,'Rule 2141/1 (Power=3)\nRole and Attributes of Rules\n\n A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern\n the game generally. A rule\'s content takes the form of\n a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule\n may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,\n make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,\n prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the\n rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things\n in a conditional manner.\n\n Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is\n not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.\n\n Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.\n\n Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a\n rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign\n a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.\n\n For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,\n the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all\n substantive aspects of the rule.\n\n[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule\'s title is not strictly a\nname for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the\nuniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406184,'rcs','00000001.00000456',105,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Rule Changes','Rule Changes',1187889176,'Rule 105/3 (Power=3)\nRule Changes\n\n Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,\n as part of its effect,\n\n (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum\n of the power specified by the enacting instrument,\n defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not\n specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.\n The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new\n rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the\n new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any\n attempt to so specify is null and void.\n\n (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a\n rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record\n of it.\n\n (c) amend the text of a rule.\n\n (d) retitle a rule.\n\n (e) change the power of a rule.\n\n A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.\n Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.\n\n Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes\n that change to be void and without effect. A variation in\n whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing\n rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this\n rule, but any other variation does.\n\n This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be\n created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can\n become a rule or cease to be a rule.\n\n[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a\nlow-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under\ncertain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by\nthis process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is\ncategorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different\nfrom the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]\n\n[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is\nnot a legal Rule Change.]\n\n[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to\namend by both number and title, and the number and title given\nidentify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies\nthe attempted rule change.]\n\n[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.\",\nwhere XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule\nchanges.]\n\n[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.\", this\nconstitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both\nattempt to amend the same rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.\",\nwhere both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two\nseparate attempts at rule changes.]\n\n[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form\nof words \"Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.\", where both XXX and YYY\nspecify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule\nchange, even though it is specified in two parts.]\n\n[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single\nrule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but\nthe other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRenumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406185,'rcs','00000001.00000456',2139,'Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1187889176,'Rule 2139/0 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report shall include the following:\n\n a) Each player\'s nickname (if any) and listed e-mail address\n (es).\n b) The date on which each player most recently registered.\n c) A list of all public or discussion fora, with sufficient data\n regarding each forum to players to receive messages there.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' nicknames and email addresses (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report fora (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007'),(406186,'rcs','00000001.00000456',1769,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Holidays','Holidays',1187889176,'Rule 1769/5 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406187,'rcs','00000001.00000456',591,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1187889176,'Rule 591/20 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable\n of being accurately described as either false or true, at the\n time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,\n and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,\n uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot\n constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406188,'rcs','00000001.00000457',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1187896422,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406189,'rcs','00000001.00000457',1607,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1187896422,'Rule 1607/15 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406190,'rcs','00000001.00000457',911,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1187896422,'Rule 911/16 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406191,'rcs','00000001.00000457',649,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1187896422,'Rule 649/22 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible\n for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[Note (23 August 2007): Game custom is that a person can bear more\nthan one instance of a particular patent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1598 (called 30 December 2006): A person cannot bear more than\none instance of a particular patent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007'),(406192,'rcs','00000001.00000458',591,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1187926122,'Rule 591/20 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable\n of being accurately described as either false or true, at the\n time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,\n and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,\n uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot\n constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406193,'rcs','00000001.00000459',2136,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Contests','Contests',1188299941,'Rule 2136/7 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a measure of a player\'s contentiousness. The number\n of points possessed by a player is eir score.\n\n Each player\'s score is an integer. Points can only be awarded\n in integer amounts.\n\n When a player registers or deregisters, eir score becomes zero.\n\n A contest is an agreement that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of scores and contests. The Scorekeepor\'s report\n includes each player\'s score.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e\n was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 3 days of\n the previous week.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1729 (called 21 August 2007): One who is a contestmaster of\nmultiple contests can award 10 points per contest in a single week.]\n\n[Cross-references (18 July 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * report scores (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406194,'rcs','00000001.00000460',2149,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1188401672,'Rule 2149/4 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the\n following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false.\n A knave SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007'),(406195,'rcs','00000001.00000461',2126,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188401695,'Rule 2126/19 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT\n be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation\n that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs\n are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a\n number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e\n has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a\n minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless\n another person deputised for that office while that player\n held that office during that month.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that office\n during that month then that player loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses\n one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal\n case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the\n question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1727 (called 17 August 2007): If a judge recuses emself, this\ndoes not trigger a Blue VC loss.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406196,'rcs','00000001.00000461',1868,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1188401695,'Rule 1868/8 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge;\n this is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as\n judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any\n existing judge. A recusal is without cause unless stated\n otherwise in the rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL\n make such an assignment as soon as possible.\n\n Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to\n be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active\n first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a\n judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to\n be judge if already assigned.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406197,'rcs','00000001.00000461',2158,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1188401695,'Rule 2158/1 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n Within a judicial case, one or more judicial questions may\n arise. Each judicial question is either inapplicable (default)\n or applicable; this is not a persistent status but is evaluated\n instantaneously. Each judicial question either is open\n (default), suspended, or has a particular judgement; this is a\n persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The\n possible types of judgement for a judicial question vary\n according to the type of question.\n\n When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question,\n it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement\n to that question by announcement. Whenever there is a judge\n assigned to a judicial case with an applicable open question,\n the judge SHALL assign such a judgement to the question as soon\n as possible.\n\n Whenever a judicial case has a judicial question that has\n remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been\n assigned to the case, continuously for the past week, the CotC\n CAN recuse that judge with cause by announcement. Whenever a\n judicial case has a judicial question that has remained\n applicable and open, while the same judge has been assigned to\n the case, continuously for the past two weeks, the CotC SHALL so\n recuse the judge as soon as possible.\n\n Among the possible judgements of a judicial question, some\n subset of them are appropriate. Judgements are appropriate only\n where so defined by the rules. A judge SHALL NOT assign an\n inappropriate judgement. Where more than one appropriate\n judgement is available, the choice between them is at the\n judge\'s discretion.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406198,'rcs','00000001.00000461',2164,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer','Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer',1188401695,'Rule 2164/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer\n\n The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any\n time by announcement. If e has been assigned to the case for at\n least four days, such a recusal is with cause.\n\n Judicial cases can generally be transferred between judges by\n this procedure: an entity (the transferee) CAN assign emself as\n the judge of a judicial case by announcement if:\n\n (a) the case has a judge assigned (the transferor); and\n\n (b) the transferor and the transferee are different entities;\n and\n\n (c) the transferor has previously publicly consented to the\n transfer and not publicly withdrawn that consent; and\n\n (d) the transferee is qualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case; and\n\n (e) the transferee immediately (in the same announcement)\n assigns a judgement to a judicial question in the case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406199,'rcs','00000001.00000462',1504,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1188402119,'Rule 1504/14 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase after the defendant has been informed, the\n defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406200,'rcs','00000001.00000463',1504,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1188402236,'Rule 1504/15 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406201,'rcs','00000001.00000464',2126,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188402332,'Rule 2126/19 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except as described by this rule. VCs CANNOT\n be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any situation\n that would otherwise violate this condition, the offending VCs\n are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a\n number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e\n has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a\n minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless\n another person deputised for that office while that player\n held that office during that month.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that office\n during that month then that player loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses\n one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal\n case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the\n question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406202,'rcs','00000001.00000465',869,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1188402404,'Rule 869/24 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and\n Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity\n whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Null to Registered), and the\n verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player (i.e.,\n to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to Null).\n Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\" is used without\n an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406203,'rcs','00000001.00000466',2126,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188402526,'Rule 2126/20 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a\n number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e\n has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a\n minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless\n another person deputised for that office while that player\n held that office during that month.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that office\n during that month then that player loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses\n one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal\n case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the\n question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406204,'rcs','00000001.00000467',2126,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188402603,'Rule 2126/21 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs may be gained as follows:\n\n a) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains a\n number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that e\n has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to a\n minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office with a report, the\n player (if any) who held that office for the majority of that\n month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a weekly report)\n or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly report), unless\n another person deputised for that office while that player\n held that office during that month.\n\n c) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n VCs may be lost as follows:\n\n a) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its adoption\n index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n b) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that office\n during that month then that player loses one Green VC.\n\n c) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause loses\n one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an appeal\n case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned to the\n question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406205,'rcs','00000001.00000468',2126,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188402782,'Rule 2126/22 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that\n e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to\n a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier\n in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+B) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406206,'rcs','00000001.00000469',2126,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188402855,'Rule 2126/23 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that\n e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to\n a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier\n in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+B) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406207,'rcs','00000001.00000470',2126,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188402907,'Rule 2126/24 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that\n e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to\n a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier\n in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) A player who assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n within the time limit when first obliged to gains one Blue\n VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406208,'rcs','00000001.00000471',2126,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188403028,'Rule 2126/25 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that\n e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to\n a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier\n in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406209,'rcs','00000001.00000472',2126,'Amended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188403105,'Rule 2126/26 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that\n e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to\n a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier\n in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406210,'rcs','00000001.00000473',2126,'Amended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188403171,'Rule 2126/27 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that\n e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to\n a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier\n in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007'),(406211,'rcs','00000001.00000474',2126,'Amended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188403224,'Rule 2126/28 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the integer portion of the\n proposal\'s adoption index, minus the number of Red VCs that\n e has gained in this way earlier in the same week (down to\n a minimum of zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal\n gains one Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier\n in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406212,'rcs','00000001.00000475',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1188403403,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406213,'rcs','00000001.00000475',478,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1188403403,'Rule 478/20 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-null\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406214,'rcs','00000001.00000476',2166,'Created by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Assets','Assets',1188403774,'Rule 2166/0 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument\n (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document.\n Any other asset is liquid. The owner of a liquid asset\n generally CAN transfer it to another entity by announcement.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. If this\n portion of that entity\'s report is not challenged within a week\n after its publication, then it becomes correct, even if it would\n otherwise be incorrect.\n\n If an asset\'s backing document restricts its ownership to a\n class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or\n transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if\n it is owned by an entity outside that class.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406215,'rcs','00000001.00000476',2136,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Contests','Contests',1188403774,'Rule 2136/8 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e\n was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 3 days of\n the previous week.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1729 (called 21 August 2007): One who is a contestmaster of\nmultiple contests can award 10 points per contest in a single week.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406216,'rcs','00000001.00000477',2167,'Created by Proposal 5175 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Grandfather Appeals','Grandfather Appeals',1188403924,'Rule 2167/0 (Power=1)\nGrandfather Appeals\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an\n appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support.\n\n At midnight UTC on October 1, 2007, this rule repeals itself.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5175 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406217,'rcs','00000001.00000478',2153,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Interest Index','Interest Index',1188404073,'Rule 2153/1 (Power=1)\nInterest Index\n\n The interest index of a proposal is an integer from 0 to 3. It\n CAN be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or\n otherwise defaults to 1. A proposal\'s interest index SHOULD be\n proportional to its complexity.\n\n \"Disinterested\" is a synonym for \"interest index 0\". A proposal\n SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited\n to correcting errors and/or ambiguities.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406218,'rcs','00000001.00000478',2126,'Amended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188404073,'Rule 2126/29 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406219,'rcs','00000001.00000479',2149,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1188404140,'Rule 2149/5 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the\n following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false.\n A knave SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are true.\n\n Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for\n the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause,\n or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of\n the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or\n falsity of the whole is what is significant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406220,'rcs','00000001.00000480',2149,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1188404209,'Rule 2149/6 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the\n following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false\n or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL\n NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which e is\n reckless regarding the veracity of.\n\n Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for\n the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause,\n or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of\n the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or\n falsity of the whole is what is significant.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406221,'rcs','00000001.00000481',402,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Office of Speaker','Office of Speaker',1188404319,'Rule 402/21 (Power=1)\nOffice of Speaker\n\n The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of\n this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora.\n Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on\n behalf of the speaker.\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * track truthiness (rule 2149)\n * rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal (rule 2019)\n * titular head of state (rule 402)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * filling Speakership if it becomes vacant (rule 103)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406222,'rcs','00000001.00000482',649,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1188409814,'Rule 649/22 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible\n for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one\n person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007'),(406223,'rcs','00000001.00000483',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1188423527,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406224,'rcs','00000001.00000483',2149,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1188423527,'Rule 2149/6 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the\n following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false\n or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL\n NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which e is\n reckless regarding the veracity of.\n\n Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for\n the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause,\n or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of\n the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or\n falsity of the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): Rule 2149\'s obligation on a knave\nto not publish statements that e believes are true is in conflict with\nthe knave\'s right of participation in the fora.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406225,'rcs','00000001.00000484',2029,'Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002','Town Fountain','Town Fountain',1188447839,'Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)\nTown Fountain\n\n /\\ /\\\n / \\ / \\\n T\n his\n Power-4\n Rule (the first ever)\n was placed to honor\n The Agoran Spirit Of The Game\n by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root\n and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look\n on our works, ye Marvy, but do\n always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!\n\n[CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not\nnecessarily constitute a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002'),(406226,'rcs','00000001.00000485',2149,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1188492405,'Rule 2149/6 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the\n following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false\n or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL\n NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which e is\n reckless regarding the veracity of.\n\n Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for\n the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause,\n or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of\n the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or\n falsity of the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): Rule 2149\'s obligation on a knave\nto not publish statements that e believes are true is in conflict with\nthe knave\'s right of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): Knave status does not change the\ninterpretation of statements made by a player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406227,'rcs','00000001.00000485',478,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1188492405,'Rule 478/20 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-null\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406228,'rcs','00000001.00000486',2126,'Amended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1188503019,'Rule 2126/29 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by one.\n\n b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by one.\n\n c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by ten percent.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406229,'rcs','00000001.00000487',2152,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1188862994,'Rule 2152/1 (Power=2)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified player(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action is permitted.\n\n 5. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 6. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007'),(406230,'rcs','00000001.00000488',2168,'Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007','Extending the voting period','Extending the voting period',1189093401,'Rule 2168/0 (Power=1)\nExtending the voting period\n\n Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and\n the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting\n period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided\n this has not already happened for the decision in question.\n\n Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision\n SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who\n have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007'),(406231,'rcs','00000001.00000489',2136,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007','Contests','Contests',1189093496,'Rule 2136/9 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that identifies itself as such, and\n identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other\n parties are its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1729 (called 21 August 2007): One who is a contestmaster of\nmultiple contests can award 10 points per contest in a single week.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007'),(406232,'rcs','00000001.00000490',2169,'Created by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1189093657,'Rule 2169/0 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all\n the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit\n arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The\n pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the the situation at hand with respect\n to the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week, the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement between\n the parties. In this role it is subject to modification or\n termination by the usual processes governing binding agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to\n the contract in question by announcement.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007'),(406233,'rcs','00000001.00000491',2110,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1189093740,'Rule 2110/2 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n If an inquiry case on the possibility of a rule-defined action\n or the permissibility of an action results in a judgement of\n UNDECIDABLE, and that judgement is not appealed within a week,\n then the initiator of the inquiry case wins the game if e is a\n player. This can only occur once per inquiry case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007'),(406234,'rcs','00000001.00000492',2126,'Amended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1189093877,'Rule 2126/30 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are items that can be possessed by players\n and used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs\n CANNOT be affected except by the action of an instrument with\n power greater than or equal to the power of this rule. VCs\n CANNOT be possessed by any entity other than a player: in any\n situation that would otherwise violate this condition, the\n offending VCs are lost or never gained.\n\n Each VC has a color. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a\n color that e does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s\n color instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived\n (you can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The assessor\'s report includes the number of VCs of each color\n possessed by each player.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007'),(406235,'rcs','00000001.00000493',2149,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1189094118,'Rule 2149/6 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the\n following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false\n or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL\n NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which e is\n reckless regarding the veracity of.\n\n Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for\n the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause,\n or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of\n the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or\n falsity of the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): Rule 2149\'s obligation on a knave\nto not publish statements that e believes are true is in conflict with\nthe knave\'s right of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): Knave status does not change the\ninterpretation of statements made by a player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406236,'rcs','00000001.00000494',2160,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007','Deputisation','Deputisation',1189374602,'Rule 2160/1 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007'),(406237,'rcs','00000001.00000495',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1189374753,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[Cross-references (8 September 2007): the Assessor\' duties are:\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)\n * recordkeepor of VCs (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406238,'rcs','00000001.00000495',2126,'Amended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1189374753,'Rule 2126/31 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT\n be affected except by the action of an instrument with power\n greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of\n VCs is restricted to players.\n\n Each VC has a color. Each color of VC is a currency. If a\n player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess,\n then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs\n at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a\n turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When one or more players win the game, each player\'s VVLOP is\n set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007'),(406239,'rcs','00000001.00000496',2126,'Amended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1189374882,'Rule 2126/32 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT\n be affected except by the action of an instrument with power\n greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of\n VCs is restricted to players.\n\n Each VC has a color. Each color of VC is a currency. If a\n player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e does not possess,\n then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color instead; if e has no VCs\n at all, then the loss is waived (you can\'t get blood from a\n turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007'),(406240,'rcs','00000001.00000496',1922,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1189374882,'Rule 1922/15 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game.\n The Herald\'s monthly report shall record how the player\n won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007'),(406241,'rcs','00000001.00000497',2142,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Support Democracy','Support Democracy',1189374939,'Rule 2142/3 (Power=2)\nSupport Democracy\n\n A player CAN, with 2 support, flip a proposal\'s chamber from\n ordinary to democratic.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007\nPower changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(406242,'rcs','00000001.00000498',2170,'Created by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Who Am I?','Who Am I?',1189375305,'Rule 2170/0 (Power=3)\nWho Am I?\n\n A public message\'s claim as to who published it is\n self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a\n challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has\n been issued within one month before its publication.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(406243,'rcs','00000001.00000498',1551,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Ratification','Ratification',1189375305,'Rule 1551/9 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n For the purpose of this rule:\n\n a) A document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n b) An official document is a document labeled as part (possibly\n all) of an official report. The scope of an official\n document is the part of the official report that the official\n document is labeled as being.\n\n Any player CAN, without objection, ratify part or all of an\n official document. The date of this ratification and the scope\n of the ratified document become part of the official report in\n question, until the same scope is ratified at a later date.\n\n Any document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified\n one week after its publication, unless explicitly challenged\n during that period.\n\n When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that\n the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the\n time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any\n messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked,\n or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(406244,'rcs','00000001.00000498',2034,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1189375305,'Rule 2034/3 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change\n the validity of one or more of a voter\'s ballots on an Agoran\n decision whose voting period has begun but which has not yet\n been resolved shall be wholly without effect, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, no ballots on that\n decision may be validly submitted or retracted, and the outcome\n of the decision may not be changed in any way, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this rule shall be\n construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting\n the resolution of an Agoran decision.\n\n The resolution of an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(406245,'rcs','00000001.00000499',2126,'Amended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1189375379,'Rule 2126/33 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT\n be affected except by the action of an instrument with power\n greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of\n VCs is restricted to players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(406246,'rcs','00000001.00000500',2155,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5215 (Murphy), 13 September 2007','Parties','Parties',1189780965,'Rule 2155/1 (Power=1)\nParties\n\n Each player\'s Party is the color of VC that e possesses the most\n of, or Gray if e possesses none. Ties are lost by the color(s)\n that e gained most recently; ties not resolved by this method\n are won by the color that comes first in alphabetical order.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5215 (Murphy), 13 September 2007'),(406247,'rcs','00000001.00000501',2166,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007','Assets','Assets',1189781216,'Rule 2166/1 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset generally CAN be created by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"gain\" an asset is to have it created in one\'s possession; to\n \"award\" an asset to an entity is to create it in that entity\'s\n possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007'),(406248,'rcs','00000001.00000502',1868,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1189781272,'Rule 1868/9 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge;\n this is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as\n judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any\n existing judge. A recusal is with cause if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL\n make such an assignment as soon as possible.\n\n Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to\n be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active\n first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a\n judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to\n be judge if already assigned.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007'),(406249,'rcs','00000001.00000503',2126,'Amended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1189781360,'Rule 2126/34 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT\n be affected except by the action of an instrument with power\n greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of\n VCs is restricted to players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007'),(406250,'rcs','00000001.00000504',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1190041705,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406251,'rcs','00000001.00000505',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1190135427,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406252,'rcs','00000001.00000506',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1190459696,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[CFJ 1745 (called 18 September 2007): It is not possible to initiate a\njudicial case that has more than one subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406253,'rcs','00000001.00000506',1504,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1190459696,'Rule 1504/15 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform the\n defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument for\n eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1737 (called 29 August 2007): For the defendant to be \"so\ninformed\", the informer must be the judge of the case at the time of\ninforming. This informing is not invalidated by any later change of\njudge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406254,'rcs','00000001.00000507',2157,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1190642182,'Rule 2157/1 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members, or with the\n majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC.\n By this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where\n the rules state that an action is performed by sending a\n message. A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members\n of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel\n satisfies all of its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007'),(406255,'rcs','00000001.00000508',107,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1190649688,'Rule 107/5 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406256,'rcs','00000001.00000509',591,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1190773381,'Rule 591/20 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable\n of being accurately described as either false or true, at the\n time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,\n and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,\n uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot\n constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406257,'rcs','00000001.00000510',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1190920930,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties are:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406258,'rcs','00000001.00000511',2034,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1191118248,'Rule 2034/3 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that, as all or part of its effect, would change\n the validity of one or more of a voter\'s ballots on an Agoran\n decision whose voting period has begun but which has not yet\n been resolved shall be wholly without effect, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, no ballots on that\n decision may be validly submitted or retracted, and the outcome\n of the decision may not be changed in any way, any rule to the\n contrary notwithstanding. Nothing in this rule shall be\n construed as preventing the correction of errors in reporting\n the resolution of an Agoran decision.\n\n The resolution of an Agoran decision is self-ratifying.\n\n[CFJ 1748 (called 22 September 2007): The resolution of an Agoran\ndecision being self-ratifying does not mean that a purported\nannouncement of resolution is self-ratifying.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007'),(406259,'rcs','00000001.00000512',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1191429149,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): if Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (8 September 2007): the Assessor\' duties are:\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)\n * recordkeepor of VCs (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406260,'rcs','00000001.00000513',2154,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007','Replacing Officers','Replacing Officers',1191434558,'Rule 2154/4 (Power=2)\nReplacing Officers\n\n Any player CAN make an active player (hereafter the nominee) the\n holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the\n office, with Agoran Consent, provided that the nominee consents\n to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made.\n\n If intent to achieve consent for a nominee is announced as\n above, then any other active player may be nominated for the\n position with eir own consent by announcement, during the\n minimum waiting period between intent and action defined for\n Agoran Consent.\n\n If, at the end of this period, there is more than one consenting\n nominee, then officeholding cannot be changed by means of this\n Agoran consent (even if consent was achieved), and the IADoP\n SHALL as soon as possible initiate an Agoran decision to\n determine the new officeholder. Until this Agoran decision is\n resolved, the office cannot change hands by the mechanism of\n this rule.\n\n In the Agoran decision to determine a new officeholder, the\n valid options are the nominees, quorum is the lesser of three\n and the number of active players (other rules on quorum\n notwithstanding), the eligible voters are the active players,\n and the vote collector is the IADoP. In the notice resolving\n the decision, the IADoP will select one nominee from the set of\n nominees which each received the largest number of votes; this\n chosen nominee becomes the officeholder upon the posting of the\n valid notice.\n\n Stability is an office switch, tracked by the IADoP, with values\n Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN flip an\n office\'s stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual office\n becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office.\n\n If an office is Temporal at the end of a quarter, and no attempt\n to change the holder of that office with Agoran consent was made\n during that quarter, then the IADoP SHALL make at least one such\n attempt in the following quarter, and SHALL make the change if\n consent is achieved. These requirements are waived if another\n player makes such a change during the following quarter.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007'),(406261,'rcs','00000001.00000514',107,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007','Initiating Agoran Decisions','Initiating Agoran Decisions',1191435118,'Rule 107/6 (Power=3)\nInitiating Agoran Decisions\n\n An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to\n initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent\n to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks\n any of the following information, and the lack is correctly\n identified within one week after the notice is published:\n\n (a) The matter to be decided (for example, \"the adoption of\n proposal 4781\").\n\n (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to\n enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In\n particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is\n always sufficient for this purpose.\n\n (c) A clear indication of the options available.\n\n (d) The identity of the vote collector.\n\n (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this\n announcement.\n\n The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting\n period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts\n for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which\n would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter\n than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a\n dependent action.\n\n[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and\nthe information required in the notice need not be explicit.]\n\n[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention\nvoter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the\nrule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines\nthe class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly\ndescribes the class of eligible voters.]\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly\npresented in the notice takes precedence over any information that\nwould be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate\nand the implicit information would have been accurate.]\n\n[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran\ndecision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and\nthere is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which\nvoters were eligible at that time, then the notice\'s description of\nthe class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable\npublic agreement on which persons are eligible.]\n\n[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran\ndecision can change during its voting period.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007'),(406262,'rcs','00000001.00000514',208,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1191435118,'Rule 208/5 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists\nadditional votes but does not give revised totals, this does not\nqualify as including a vote tally.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007'),(406263,'rcs','00000001.00000515',2134,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007','Voting Limits are Limited','Voting Limits are Limited',1191435401,'Rule 2134/1 (Power=1)\nVoting Limits are Limited\n\n If a single player has a voting limit on ordinary proposals\n equal to or greater than the total voting limit on ordinary\n proposals of all other players combined, that player wins the\n game upon any player announcing the fact.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007'),(406264,'rcs','00000001.00000516',1504,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1191435502,'Rule 1504/16 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1737 (called 29 August 2007): For the defendant to be \"so\ninformed\", the informer must be the judge of the case at the time of\ninforming. This informing is not invalidated by any later change of\njudge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007'),(406265,'rcs','00000001.00000518',2171,'Created by Proposal 5230 (comex), 3 October 2007','Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement','Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement',1191436317,'Rule 2171/0 (Power=1)\nRules Viewed as Binding Agreement\n\n In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were\n a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every\n player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged\n Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding\n agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.\n\n The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima\n facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and\n privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to\n be bound by the rules.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5230 (comex), 3 October 2007'),(406266,'rcs','00000001.00000519',2136,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007','Contests','Contests',1191436503,'Rule 2136/10 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is published before any contestants become a party to it,\n and\n\n (e) is fair to all contestants.\n\n All parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1729 (called 21 August 2007): One who is a contestmaster of\nmultiple contests can award 10 points per contest in a single week.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007'),(406267,'rcs','00000001.00000520',2125,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007','Regulation Regulations','Regulation Regulations',1191436593,'Rule 2125/1 (Power=3)\nRegulation Regulations\n\n An action is regulated if:\n\n (a) the action is prohibited;\n\n (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied,\n then some player is permitted to perform the action;\n\n (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information\n for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor; or\n\n (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible\n to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any\n combinations of actions by players.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007'),(406268,'rcs','00000001.00000521',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1191436679,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (3 October 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * consider posture when assigning judges (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406269,'rcs','00000001.00000522',1051,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The Rulekeepor','The Rulekeepor',1191447019,'Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)\nThe Rulekeepor\n\n The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.\n\n The Rulekeepor\'s Weekly report includes the Short Logical\n Ruleset. The Rulekeepor\'s Monthly report includes the Full\n Logical Ruleset.\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor\'s duties are:\n * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141)\n * assign title to rule (rule 2141)\n * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)\n * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681)\n * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681)\n * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)]\n\nHistory:\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nInfected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,\n substantial (unattributed)\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406270,'rcs','00000001.00000522',2161,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','ID Numbers','ID Numbers',1191447019,'Rule 2161/2 (Power=2)\nID Numbers\n\n If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then:\n\n (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID\n number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL\n assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as\n possible.\n\n (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural\n number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14\n digits) distinct from any ID number, and greater than any\n orderly ID number, previously assigned to an entity of that\n type. The player SHALL select the smallest number possible,\n unless e reasonably believes that selecting any smaller\n number might be invalid or confusing.\n\n (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon\n a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was\n ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic.\n\n (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed.\n\n (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then\n that officer\'s report includes the greatest orderly ID\n number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously\n assigned to the type of entity.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406271,'rcs','00000001.00000522',2138,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1191447019,'Rule 2138/2 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (9 July 2007): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406272,'rcs','00000001.00000522',649,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1191447019,'Rule 649/23 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible\n for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s monthly report\n includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one person\n Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406273,'rcs','00000001.00000522',1922,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1191447019,'Rule 1922/16 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game.\n The Herald\'s monthly report includes how the player won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406274,'rcs','00000001.00000522',2147,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','Protectorates','Protectorates',1191447019,'Rule 2147/3 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. For this purpose, the nomic may\n specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided\n that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the\n specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a\n protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a\n protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s monthly report includes a list of all\n protectorates, with contact details for each, and for each the\n forum in which it is most appropriate to proclaim protective\n decrees that target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406275,'rcs','00000001.00000523',1006,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Offices','Offices',1191447403,'Rule 1006/22 (Power=2)\nOffices\n\n A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the\n rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is\n filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is\n an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office.\n\n[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning\nof the term \"office\", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather\nreferences the usual English definition of \"office\" and governs\noffices as thus defined.]\n\n[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to\nan officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is\nvacant at the time.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993\nAmended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406276,'rcs','00000001.00000523',2143,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Official Reports','Official Reports',1191447403,'Rule 2143/1 (Power=1)\nOfficial Reports\n\n For each office:\n\n a) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that\n office\'s weekly report, then the holder of that office SHALL\n maintain all such information, and SHALL publish it at least\n once each week. Otherwise, that office has no weekly report.\n\n b) If any information is defined by the rules as part of that\n office\'s monthly report, then the holder of that office SHALL\n maintain all such information, and SHALL publish it at least\n once each month. Otherwise, that office has no monthly\n report.\n\n Any information defined by the rules as part of an office\'s\n report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly\n report (unless the office is defined by the rules as\n low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406277,'rcs','00000001.00000523',649,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1191447403,'Rule 649/24 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406278,'rcs','00000001.00000523',1922,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1191447403,'Rule 1922/17 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game.\n The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406279,'rcs','00000001.00000523',2148,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1191447403,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406280,'rcs','00000001.00000523',2147,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Protectorates','Protectorates',1191447403,'Rule 2147/4 (Power=2)\nProtectorates\n\n Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent\n responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora\n desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic\n community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as\n benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status\n (hereafter referred to as the protectorate).\n\n In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its\n ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector.\n It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that\n any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take\n full effect upon proclamation. For this purpose, the nomic may\n specify the forum in which proclamation is to be made, provided\n that it is reasonably possible for the ambassador to use the\n specified forum. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a\n protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a\n protectorate.\n\n If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met,\n the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran\n Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria,\n it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check\n every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the\n criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased\n to be a protectorate.\n\n The ambassador\'s report includes a list of all protectorates,\n with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which\n it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that\n target that protectorate.\n\n[Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate\'s ruleset:\n\"Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect\nas specified by the rules of Agora.\".]\n\n[CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic\'s ruleset contains a\nstatement similar to \"This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to\nmake changes to its ruleset.\", this can be interpreted as \"This\nnomic\'s rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.\", thus\nsatisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at\nthe time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change\nits ruleset].]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406281,'rcs','00000001.00000524',2136,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007','Contests','Contests',1191858621,'Rule 2136/10 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is published before any contestants become a party to it,\n and\n\n (e) is fair to all contestants.\n\n All parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1762 (called 3 October 2007): A purported contest that allows the\ncontestmaster to award points at eir discretion is thereby unfair, and\nthereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJ 1729 (called 21 August 2007): One who is a contestmaster of\nmultiple contests can award 10 points per contest in a single week.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007'),(406282,'rcs','00000001.00000525',478,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1191879029,'Rule 478/20 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-null\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406283,'rcs','00000001.00000526',2145,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007','Partnerships','Partnerships',1191901017,'Rule 2145/2 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n set of its non-partnership members with the bases of each of its\n partnership members. Where circularity occurs in this\n definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets that\n provide consistency.\n\n A partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a\n person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007'),(406284,'rcs','00000001.00000527',1367,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007','Degrees','Degrees',1191942208,'Rule 1367/9 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. A degree CAN be awarded by the\n action of an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n power of this rule, but CANNOT be awarded in any other way.\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007'),(406285,'rcs','00000001.00000528',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1192549974,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(406286,'rcs','00000001.00000529',2152,'Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1192550144,'Rule 2152/1 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified player(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action is permitted.\n\n 5. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 6. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007'),(406287,'rcs','00000001.00000530',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1192550377,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (14 October 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406288,'rcs','00000001.00000530',1868,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1192550377,'Rule 1868/10 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge;\n this is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as\n judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any\n existing judge. A recusal is with cause if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL\n make such an assignment as soon as possible.\n\n Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to\n be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active\n first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a\n judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to\n be judge if already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007'),(406289,'rcs','00000001.00000530',1871,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1192550377,'Rule 1871/15 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, and\n Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n A player may flip eir posture from Sitting to Supine, or vice\n versa, by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting player is poorly qualified to be\n assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007'),(406290,'rcs','00000001.00000531',1871,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1192550542,'Rule 1871/16 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any\n non-standing value by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007'),(406291,'rcs','00000001.00000532',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1192550693,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (14 October 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406292,'rcs','00000001.00000532',1871,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1192550693,'Rule 1871/17 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any\n non-standing value by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007'),(406293,'rcs','00000001.00000533',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1192550844,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (14 October 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406294,'rcs','00000001.00000533',1871,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1192550844,'Rule 1871/18 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any\n non-standing value by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007'),(406295,'rcs','00000001.00000534',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1192717639,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406296,'rcs','00000001.00000534',2173,'Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','The Notary','The Notary',1192717639,'Rule 2173/0 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible\n for keeping track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s report includes\n this information for each public contract.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406297,'rcs','00000001.00000535',2130,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Activity','Activity',1192717752,'Rule 2130/8 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each player\'s activity last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406298,'rcs','00000001.00000536',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1192931780,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406299,'rcs','00000001.00000536',1871,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1192931780,'Rule 1871/18 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any\n non-standing value by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are sitting players, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the one-week time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007'),(406300,'rcs','00000001.00000536',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1192931780,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406301,'rcs','00000001.00000537',208,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1193001549,'Rule 208/5 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists\nadditional votes but does not give revised totals, this does qualify\nas including a vote tally.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007'),(406302,'rcs','00000001.00000538',2157,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1193016199,'Rule 2157/1 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members, or with the\n majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC.\n By this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where\n the rules state that an action is performed by sending a\n message. A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members\n of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel\n satisfies all of its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\n[CFJ 1767 (called 21 October 2007): The agreement of the panel\'s\nmembers referred to in this rule is a state of affairs that does not\nrequire public messages in order to be brought into being.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007'); INSERT INTO `rules` VALUES (406303,'rcs','00000001.00000539',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1193111453,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406304,'rcs','00000001.00000539',2149,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1193111453,'Rule 2149/6 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Speaker, with the\n following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false\n or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL\n NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which e is\n reckless regarding the veracity of.\n\n Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for\n the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause,\n or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of\n the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or\n falsity of the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): Rule 2149\'s obligation on a\nknights to not publish statements that e believes are false is not in\nconflict with the knight\'s right of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): Rule 2149\'s obligation on a knave\nto not publish statements that e believes are true is in conflict with\nthe knave\'s right of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): Knave status does not change the\ninterpretation of statements made by a player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007'),(406305,'rcs','00000001.00000540',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1193239095,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406306,'rcs','00000001.00000540',208,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1193239095,'Rule 208/5 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists\nadditional votes but does not give revised totals, this does not\nqualify as including a vote tally.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007'),(406307,'rcs','00000001.00000540',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1193239095,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406308,'rcs','00000001.00000541',2126,'Amended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1193606461,'Rule 2126/35 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT\n be affected except by the action of an instrument with power\n greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of\n VCs is restricted to players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406309,'rcs','00000001.00000542',2149,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves','Truthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves',1193607234,'Rule 2149/7 (Power=1)\nTruthiness, or the Island of Knights and Knaves\n\n Truthiness is a player switch, tracked by the Registrar, with\n the following possible values:\n\n KNIGHT - the player is a knight (default)\n KNAVE - the player is a knave\n SPY - the player is neither a knight nor a knave\n FOOL - the player is both a knight and a knave\n\n A knight SHALL NOT publish statements that e believes are false\n or which e is reckless regarding the veracity of. A knave SHALL\n NOT publish statements that e believes are true or which e is\n reckless regarding the veracity of.\n\n Merely quoting a statement does not constitute publishing it for\n the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause,\n or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of\n the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or\n falsity of the whole is what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): Rule 2149\'s obligation on a\nknights to not publish statements that e believes are false is not in\nconflict with the knight\'s right of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): Rule 2149\'s obligation on a knave\nto not publish statements that e believes are true is in conflict with\nthe knave\'s right of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): Knave status does not change the\ninterpretation of statements made by a player.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406310,'rcs','00000001.00000542',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1193607234,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track truthiness (rule 2149)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406311,'rcs','00000001.00000542',2019,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Prerogatives','Prerogatives',1193607234,'Rule 2019/10 (Power=2)\nPrerogatives\n\n As soon as possible after the beginning of the month, the\n Speaker SHALL randomly assign each Minister Without Portfolio a\n different Prerogative for the remainder of that month. If there\n are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL\n randomly choose which members of the larger set take part in the\n assignment.\n\n The following Prerogatives are defined:\n\n a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become\n holder of a vacant office by announcement, unless e is\n prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis.\n\n b) Default Justice. Whenever the Clerk of the Courts assigns a\n judicial panel, e SHALL assign one with the Default Justice\n as a member, unless no such panel is eligible to be so\n assigned.\n\n c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary\n proposal in its voting period by announcement; this increases\n its Adoption Index by 1.\n\n d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN\n rubberstamp an ordinary proposal in its voting period by\n announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406312,'rcs','00000001.00000542',1922,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1193607234,'Rule 1922/18 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game.\n The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded to any player who\n wins the game. If the number of players bearing this title\n is greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is revoked from the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406313,'rcs','00000001.00000542',402,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1193607234,'Rule 402/22 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406314,'rcs','00000001.00000542',103,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Role of the Speaker','Role of the Speaker',1193607234,'Rule 103/3 (Power=3)\nRole of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit.\n Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the\n Speaker\'s behalf.\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999\nRetitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406315,'rcs','00000001.00000543',1871,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1193607377,'Rule 1871/19 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A non-standing player CAN flip eir posture to any\n non-standing value by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the one-week time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007'),(406316,'rcs','00000001.00000544',2126,'Amended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1193607705,'Rule 2126/36 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. VCs CANNOT\n be affected except by the action of an instrument with power\n greater than or equal to the power of this rule. Ownership of\n VCs is restricted to players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007'),(406317,'rcs','00000001.00000545',2169,'Created by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1193615828,'Rule 2169/0 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all\n the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit\n arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The\n pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the the situation at hand with respect\n to the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week, the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement between\n the parties. In this role it is subject to modification or\n termination by the usual processes governing binding agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to\n the contract in question by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007'),(406318,'rcs','00000001.00000545',2171,'Created by Proposal 5230 (comex), 3 October 2007','Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement','Rules Viewed as Binding Agreement',1193615828,'Rule 2171/0 (Power=1)\nRules Viewed as Binding Agreement\n\n In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were\n a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every\n player as a part of becoming a Player. An actual or alleged\n Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding\n agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.\n\n The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima\n facie, be considered to be protective of a Player\'s rights and\n privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to\n be bound by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): Despite this rule, the rules are\nnot a contract as defined by rule 1742, and cannot be adjudicated as a\nbinding agreement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5230 (comex), 3 October 2007'),(406319,'rcs','00000001.00000546',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1193618949,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 October 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406320,'rcs','00000001.00000547',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1193843623,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1756-1757 (called 28 September 2007): A CFJ cannot belong to\nmore than one subclass. An announcement claiming to initiate a CFJ of\nmore than one subclass does not initiate any CFJ.]\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (28 October 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406321,'rcs','00000001.00000548',1871,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1193844258,'Rule 1871/20 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value\n by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the one-week time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007'),(406322,'rcs','00000001.00000549',591,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1194223468,'Rule 591/20 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable\n of being accurately described as either false or true, at the\n time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE,\n and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however,\n uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot\n constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406323,'rcs','00000001.00000550',1504,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1194242516,'Rule 1504/16 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1773 (called 28 October 2007): An announcement that claims to\ninitiate an equity case, and in doing so alleges a rule violation with\nall the elements required for a criminal case, does not initiate a\ncriminal case.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007'),(406324,'rcs','00000001.00000551',478,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','Fora','Fora',1194305291,'Rule 478/20 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Null (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-null\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406325,'rcs','00000001.00000552',754,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007','Definition Definitions','Definition Definitions',1194394306,'Rule 754/7 (Power=3)\nDefinition Definitions\n\n Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy\n function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:\n\n (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of\n a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is\n inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as\n the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.\n\n (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that\n meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly\n defined by the rules.\n\n (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,\n and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by\n default has the meaning it has in those contexts.\n\n (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule\n by default has its ordinary-language meaning.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate\n terminology or grammar.\n\n[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language\nqualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game\nactions by messages in languages other than English.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other\nthan English, and its intended audience does not understand the\nlanguage, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message\nineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or\nnickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]\n\n[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name\nof an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a\nperson, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]\n\n[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring\nextensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient\ndegree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]\n\n[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a\nmessage, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,\ncan render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding\nstep requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including\nnumerical character entity encoding) does not render a message\nineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a\nheader.]\n\n[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need\nthe RFC-required \"MIME-Version:\" header in order for it to be\ninterpreted in the MIME way.]\n\n[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase \"AOL!\" is not a\nsufficiently clear synonym for \"Me too!\".]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a\nrule-defined term in its own way, and the contract\'s definition will\nthen apply in situations governed by the contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993\nAmended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nInfected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007'),(406326,'rcs','00000001.00000553',2160,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007','Deputisation','Deputisation',1194449703,'Rule 2160/1 (Power=1)\nDeputisation\n\n Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a\n particular office (deputise for that office) if:\n\n (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of\n holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the\n office is vacant, would so require if the office were\n filled); and\n\n (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be\n performed has expired; and\n\n (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier\n that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes\n of the particular action; and\n\n (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,\n other than by deputisation, if e held the office.\n\n[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an\naction, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication\nfrom rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007'),(406327,'rcs','00000001.00000554',649,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1194469169,'Rule 649/24 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (7 November 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406328,'rcs','00000001.00000554',402,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007','Identity of the Speaker','Identity of the Speaker',1194469169,'Rule 402/23 (Power=1)\nIdentity of the Speaker\n\n The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of\n Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in\n favor of the player who has been registered the longest.\n\n The Herald\'s report includes the date on which each Minister\n Without Portfolio most recently won the game.\n\n[Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker\'s duties are:\n * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019)\n * figurehead (rule 103)\nThe other provisions governing the Speakership are:\n * identity of the Speaker (rule 402)\n * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996\nInfected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007'),(406329,'rcs','00000001.00000555',869,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1194469358,'Rule 869/25 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406330,'rcs','00000001.00000555',2130,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Activity','Activity',1194469358,'Rule 2130/9 (Power=1)\nActivity\n\n Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and\n Inactive, tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar\'s report\n includes the date on which each non-Active player\'s activity\n last changed.\n\n A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. \"To go on hold\"\n is to become Inactive; \"to come off hold\" is to become Active.\n\n A player CAN flip another player\'s activity to Inactive without\n objection.\n\n A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three\n months CAN be deregistered by any other player without\n objection.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406331,'rcs','00000001.00000555',2162,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Switches','Switches',1194469358,'Rule 2162/1 (Power=2)\nSwitches\n\n A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a\n switch, and specify the following:\n\n a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.\n No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.\n\n b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,\n exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other\n values are possible for instances of that switch.\n\n c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch.\n That officer\'s report includes the value of each instance of\n that switch whose value is not its default value.\n\n At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one\n possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a\n switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.\n If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a\n possible value, it comes to have its default value.\n\n \"To flip an instance of a switch\" is to make it come to have a\n given value. \"To become X\" (where X is a possible value of\n exactly one of the subject\'s switches) is to flip that switch to\n X.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406332,'rcs','00000001.00000556',478,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1194469432,'Rule 478/21 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n A player performs an action \"by announcement\" by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007'),(406333,'rcs','00000001.00000557',2174,'Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Aliens','Aliens',1194469640,'Rule 2174/0 (Power=1)\nAliens\n\n An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or\n more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an\n alien with one or more registered visas.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406334,'rcs','00000001.00000558',1551,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Ratification','Ratification',1194469788,'Rule 1551/10 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly\n challenged during that period.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406335,'rcs','00000001.00000558',2034,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges','Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges',1194469788,'Rule 2034/4 (Power=3)\nVote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges\n\n Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any\n existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is\n wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.\n This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the\n validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.\n\n Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be\n validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be\n changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This\n does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.\n\n A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is\n self-ratifying.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406336,'rcs','00000001.00000559',1688,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Power','Power',1194470008,'Rule 1688/4 (Power=3)\nPower\n\n The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.\n An instrument is an entity with positive power.\n\n The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as\n stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except\n where specifically allowed by the rules.\n\n A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule)\n thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as\n allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the\n change\'s power threshold. This threshold defaults to the\n securing rule\'s power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that\n rule.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406337,'rcs','00000001.00000559',2156,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Voting on Ordinary Proposals','Voting on Ordinary Proposals',1194470008,'Rule 2156/3 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Proposals\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir base voting limit on\n ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class player\n is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. BVLOP\n cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir volatile voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. Changes to VVLOP are secured\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir effective voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of each week, each\n player\'s EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to an integer,\n breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is set to the\n same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any other\n means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOP.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir\n EVLOP at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406338,'rcs','00000001.00000559',2126,'Amended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1194470008,'Rule 2126/37 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406339,'rcs','00000001.00000559',1367,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Degrees','Degrees',1194470008,'Rule 1367/10 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. The awarding of a degree is a\n secured change\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406340,'rcs','00000001.00000559',2159,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Protective Decrees','Protective Decrees',1194470008,'Rule 2159/1 (Power=2)\nProtective Decrees\n\n A protective decree is an act of Agora the intended effect of\n which is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate\n nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending\n rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the\n protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the\n protectorate\'s gamestate.\n\n The initiation of a protective decree is a secured change. The\n initiating instrument must specify the target protectorate and\n the changes to be made to it. Any ambiguity in the\n specification of a protective decree causes it to be void and\n without effect. This is the only mechanism by which a\n protective decree can be initiated.\n\n As soon as possible after a protective decree has been\n initiated, the ambassador shall proclaim it to the target nomic,\n in whatever forum is most suitable for this purpose. The decree\n takes effect upon this proclamation.\n\n Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of\n assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its\n longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n that a document is a protective decree.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406341,'rcs','00000001.00000560',1868,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1194470105,'Rule 1868/11 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge;\n this is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules. To recuse a judge from a case means to deassign em as\n judge. To assign a judge to a case implicitly recuses any\n existing judge. A recusal is with cause if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge; this is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement. Whenever this situation arises the CotC SHALL\n make such an assignment as soon as possible.\n\n Except where modified by other rules, the entities qualified to\n be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active\n first-class players. Being unqualified to be assigned as a\n judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to\n be judge if already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406342,'rcs','00000001.00000561',2149,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007','Truthfulness','Truthfulness',1194470311,'Rule 2149/8 (Power=1)\nTruthfulness\n\n A person SHALL NOT make a public statement unless e believes\n that in doing so e is telling the truth. Merely quoting a false\n statement does not constitute making it for the purposes of this\n rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier\n attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement for\n the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is\n what is significant.\n\n[CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a\nviolation of rule 2149, depending on the context of the rest of the\nmessage.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4990 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5075 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5129 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5140 (Murphy), 19 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5147 (comex), 29 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5179 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5180 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5280 (Zefram, Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406343,'rcs','00000001.00000561',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1194470311,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (7 November 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406344,'rcs','00000001.00000562',991,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1194470662,'Rule 991/9 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are\n subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by\n other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined\n by the rules.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be\n assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1756-1757 (called 28 September 2007): A CFJ cannot belong to\nmore than one subclass. An announcement claiming to initiate a CFJ of\nmore than one subclass does not initiate any CFJ.]\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[CFJ 1742 (called 13 September 2007): A judicial case can exist that\nhas no subclass.]\n\n[Cross-references (7 November 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406345,'rcs','00000001.00000562',2175,'Created by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007','Excess CFJs','Excess CFJs',1194470662,'Rule 2175/0 (Power=1)\nExcess CFJs\n\n A judicial case initiated by a person who has previously\n initiated five or more cases during the same Agoran Week as that\n case is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts CAN, by\n announcement, refuse an Excess CFJ that has not had any judge\n assigned to it. Refusal of an Excess CFJ causes it to cease to\n be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007'),(406346,'rcs','00000001.00000563',2151,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007','Agoran Arms','Agoran Arms',1194470733,'Rule 2151/1 (Power=1)\nAgoran Arms\n\n The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon:\n Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill\n and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter\n A, gules.\n\n Agora\'s adopted motto is \"Agora n\'est pas une fontaine.\"\n\n[Note (28 June 2007): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at\n.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007'),(406347,'rcs','00000001.00000564',1607,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1194479801,'Rule 1607/15 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406348,'rcs','00000001.00000565',2136,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007','Contests','Contests',1194833987,'Rule 2136/10 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is published before any contestants become a party to it,\n and\n\n (e) is fair to all contestants.\n\n All parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJ 1762 (called 3 October 2007): A purported contest that allows the\ncontestmaster to award points at eir discretion is thereby unfair, and\nthereby not a contest.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007'),(406349,'rcs','00000001.00000566',2166,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007','Assets','Assets',1194913415,'Rule 2166/1 (Power=2)\nAssets\n\n An asset is an entity defined as such by an instrument or\n contract (hereafter its backing document).\n\n Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise\n lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset\'s backing\n document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then\n that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity\n outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity\n outside that class.\n\n The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity defined as\n such by its backing document. That entity\'s report includes a\n list of all instances of that class and their owners. This\n portion of that entity\'s report is self-ratifying.\n\n An asset generally CAN be created by its recordkeepor by\n announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.\n To \"gain\" an asset is to have it created in one\'s possession; to\n \"award\" an asset to an entity is to create it in that entity\'s\n possession.\n\n An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by\n announcement, and an asset owned by the Bank generally CAN be\n destroyed by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to\n modification by its backing document. To \"lose\" an asset is to\n have it destroyed from one\'s possession; to \"revoke\" an asset\n from an entity is to destroy it from that entity\'s possession.\n\n A asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another\n entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing\n document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing\n document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.\n\n A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing\n document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are\n fungible.\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset\nreport is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a\npartial list does not self-ratify.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007'),(406350,'rcs','00000001.00000566',1551,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','Ratification','Ratification',1194913415,'Rule 1551/10 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly\n challenged during that period.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406351,'rcs','00000001.00000567',2126,'Amended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1195146288,'Rule 2126/38 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007'),(406352,'rcs','00000001.00000568',2126,'Amended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1195146374,'Rule 2126/39 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007'),(406353,'rcs','00000001.00000569',1922,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1195146450,'Rule 1922/19 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game.\n The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded to any player who\n wins the game. If the number of players bearing this title\n is greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the\n rules, then this title is administratively revoked from the\n Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007'),(406354,'rcs','00000001.00000570',478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1195146584,'Rule 478/22 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007'),(406355,'rcs','00000001.00000571',2136,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007','Contests','Contests',1195230263,'Rule 2136/10 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is published before any contestants become a party to it,\n and\n\n (e) is fair to all contestants.\n\n All parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJ 1797 (called 14 November 2007): To be \"fair to all contestants\" a\ncontract must be fair to all potential contestants, including ones\nthat are not presently actual contestants.\n\n[CFJ 1762 (called 3 October 2007): A purported contest that allows the\ncontestmaster to award points at eir discretion is thereby unfair, and\nthereby not a contest.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007'),(406356,'rcs','00000001.00000572',106,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1195430944,'Rule 106/8 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406357,'rcs','00000001.00000572',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1195430944,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406358,'rcs','00000001.00000573',478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1195496461,'Rule 478/22 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007'),(406359,'rcs','00000001.00000574',1681,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1195517262,'Rule 1681/11 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating the type\n of change, the date on which the change took effect, the\n mechanism which specified the change, and if the rule was\n changed due to a proposal, a reference to that proposal, its\n proposer, and any coauthors explicitly named in that proposal.\n\n[CFJ 1798 (called 16 November 2007): \"coauthor\" in the rules means\nanyone named as a coauthor by the proposal, regardless of their actual\nlevel of creative collaboration.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406360,'rcs','00000001.00000574',1607,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1195517262,'Rule 1607/15 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[CFJ 1798 (called 16 November 2007): \"coauthor\" in the rules means\nanyone named as a coauthor by the proposal, regardless of their actual\nlevel of creative collaboration.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406361,'rcs','00000001.00000574',2126,'Amended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1195517262,'Rule 2126/39 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1798 (called 16 November 2007): \"coauthor\" in the rules means\nanyone named as a coauthor by the proposal, regardless of their actual\nlevel of creative collaboration.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007'),(406362,'rcs','00000001.00000575',2124,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007','Methods of Dependent Actions','Methods of Dependent Actions',1195537621,'Rule 2124/4 (Power=1)\nMethods of Dependent Actions\n\n The following methods of dependent actions are defined:\n\n (a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is N.\n \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1 Supporter\".\n\n (b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection index\n is N. \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\".\n\n (c) With N Agoran Consent. For this method, the majority index\n is N. \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with \"With 1/2\n Agoran Consent\".\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007'),(406363,'rcs','00000001.00000576',2136,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007','Contests','Contests',1195539157,'Rule 2136/10 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is published before any contestants become a party to it,\n and\n\n (e) is fair to all contestants.\n\n All parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJs 1792-1793 (called 13 November 2007): For a purported contest to\nallow any first-class player to become a party, the players must have\nat least 96 hours from first becoming aware of the agreement text to\nreview it in order to make an informed decision as to whether to\nconsent to it.]\n\n[CFJ 1797 (called 14 November 2007): To be \"fair to all contestants\" a\ncontract must be fair to all potential contestants, including ones\nthat are not presently actual contestants.\n\n[CFJ 1762 (called 3 October 2007): A purported contest that allows the\ncontestmaster to award points at eir discretion is thereby unfair, and\nthereby not a contest.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007'),(406364,'rcs','00000001.00000577',911,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1196204329,'Rule 911/16 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007'),(406365,'rcs','00000001.00000578',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1196264634,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(406366,'rcs','00000001.00000579',1586,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007','Definition and Continuity of Entities','Definition and Continuity of Entities',1196287422,'Rule 1586/3 (Power=2)\nDefinition and Continuity of Entities\n\n Two Rule-defined entities CANNOT have the same name or nickname.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are repealed or amended such\n that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its\n properties cease to exist.\n\n If the Rules defining an entity are amended such that they still\n define that entity but with different properties, then that\n entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent\n is possible under the new definitions.\n\n[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include\npending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules\neven if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger\nthem under the new rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007'),(406367,'rcs','00000001.00000580',2158,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1196323823,'Rule 2158/1 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n Within a judicial case, one or more judicial questions may\n arise. Each judicial question is either inapplicable (default)\n or applicable; this is not a persistent status but is evaluated\n instantaneously. Each judicial question either is open\n (default), suspended, or has a particular judgement; this is a\n persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The\n possible types of judgement for a judicial question vary\n according to the type of question.\n\n When a judicial case has an applicable open judicial question,\n it requires a judge, and its judge CAN assign a valid judgement\n to that question by announcement. Whenever there is a judge\n assigned to a judicial case with an applicable open question,\n the judge SHALL assign such a judgement to the question as soon\n as possible.\n\n Whenever a judicial case has a judicial question that has\n remained applicable and open, while the same judge has been\n assigned to the case, continuously for the past week, the CotC\n CAN recuse that judge with cause by announcement. Whenever a\n judicial case has a judicial question that has remained\n applicable and open, while the same judge has been assigned to\n the case, continuously for the past two weeks, the CotC SHALL so\n recuse the judge as soon as possible.\n\n Among the possible judgements of a judicial question, some\n subset of them are appropriate. Judgements are appropriate only\n where so defined by the rules. A judge SHALL NOT assign an\n inappropriate judgement. Where more than one appropriate\n judgement is available, the choice between them is at the\n judge\'s discretion.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007'),(406368,'rcs','00000001.00000580',1504,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1196323823,'Rule 1504/16 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1773 (called 28 October 2007): An announcement that claims to\ninitiate an equity case, and in doing so alleges a rule violation with\nall the elements required for a criminal case, does not initiate a\ncriminal case.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007'),(406369,'rcs','00000001.00000581',1504,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1196357068,'Rule 1504/16 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant has good reason why e\n could not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as\n serious as alleged\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1773 (called 28 October 2007): An announcement that claims to\ninitiate an equity case, and in doing so alleges a rule violation with\nall the elements required for a criminal case, does not initiate a\ncriminal case.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007'),(406370,'rcs','00000001.00000582',2173,'Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','The Notary','The Notary',1196359094,'Rule 2173/0 (Power=1)\nThe Notary\n\n The Notary is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible\n for keeping track of contracts.\n\n The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed\n of its text and set of parties. The Notary\'s report includes\n this information for each public contract.\n\n The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary\n informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL\n disclose this information (to the extent that e has been\n informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to\n that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise,\n except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the\n explicit consent of all parties.\n\n[CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from\ndisclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current\ntext and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged\nknowledge.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406371,'rcs','00000001.00000583',2126,'Amended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1196373818,'Rule 2126/39 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1798 (called 16 November 2007): \"coauthor\" in the rules means\nanyone named as a coauthor by the proposal, regardless of their actual\nlevel of creative collaboration.]\n\n[CFJ 1806 (called 24 November 2007): \"VCs of different colors\" means\nthat all the VCs involved must be mutually distinct in color.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007'),(406372,'rcs','00000001.00000584',208,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1196651982,'Rule 208/5 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007'),(406373,'rcs','00000001.00000585',2110,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007','Win by Paradox','Win by Paradox',1196653372,'Rule 2110/3 (Power=3)\nWin by Paradox\n\n If an inquiry case on the possibility of a prior or hypothetical\n rule-defined action, or the permissibility of a prior or\n hypothetical action, results in a judgement of UNDECIDABLE, and\n the judgement is not appealed within a week (or is upheld via an\n appeal decision of AFFIRM), then the initiator of the inquiry\n case wins the game by paradox if e is a player. This can only\n occur once per inquiry case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007'),(406374,'rcs','00000001.00000586',2176,'Created by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007','Marks','Marks',1196653591,'Rule 2176/0 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark.\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) At the end of a proposal\'s voting period, each player who\n voted on it gains one Red Mark. If at least one of eir\n votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to\n AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index,\n then e gains another Red Mark. If the proposal is adopted,\n and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains\n another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+B) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-B) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007'),(406375,'rcs','00000001.00000587',2136,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007','Contests','Contests',1196653780,'Rule 2136/11 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an agreement that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a\n party to it, and\n\n (e) is fair to all contestants.\n\n All parties to the agreement who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJs 1792-1793 (called 13 November 2007): For a purported contest to\nallow any first-class player to become a party, the players must have\nat least 96 hours from first becoming aware of the agreement text to\nreview it in order to make an informed decision as to whether to\nconsent to it.]\n\n[CFJ 1797 (called 14 November 2007): To be \"fair to all contestants\" a\ncontract must be fair to all potential contestants, including ones\nthat are not presently actual contestants.\n\n[CFJ 1762 (called 3 October 2007): A purported contest that allows the\ncontestmaster to award points at eir discretion is thereby unfair, and\nthereby not a contest.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007'),(406376,'rcs','00000001.00000588',1504,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1196653876,'Rule 1504/17 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could\n not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1713 (called 2 August 2007): An announcement of the form \"I call\nfor judgement to determine whether violated by\n.\" initiates a criminal case, despite the appearance that it\nis asking about veracity rather than about culpability or sentencing.]\n\n[CFJ 1773 (called 28 October 2007): An announcement that claims to\ninitiate an equity case, and in doing so alleges a rule violation with\nall the elements required for a criminal case, does not initiate a\ncriminal case.]\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007'),(406377,'rcs','00000001.00000589',2150,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007','Personhood','Personhood',1196654010,'Rule 2150/2 (Power=2)\nPersonhood\n\n A person is an entity that has the general capacity to be the\n subject of rights and obligations under the rules. An entity is\n a person if and only if it is defined to be so by rules with\n power 2 or greater.\n\n Any biological organism that is capable of communicating by\n email in English is a person.\n\n \"First-class person\" means a person of a biological nature.\n\n \"First-class player\" means a player who is a first-class person.\n\n The basis of a a first-class person is the singleton set\n consisting of that person.\n\n[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to\ncommunicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do\nnot know the organism\'s email address.]\n\n[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,\nkeyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption\nagainst personhood and against one having spoken on one\'s own behalf.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007'),(406378,'rcs','00000001.00000589',2145,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007','Partnerships','Partnerships',1196654010,'Rule 2145/3 (Power=2)\nPartnerships\n\n A binding agreement governed by the rules which devolves its\n legal obligations onto a subset of its parties, numbering at\n least two, collectively, is a partnership. The members of a\n partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership\'s legal\n obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership\'s identity\n and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its\n membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of\n a partnership.\n\n A partnership\'s basis is the set consisting of the union of the\n the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in\n this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets\n that provide consistency.\n\n A partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a\n person.\n\n[CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a\npartnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the\npartnership\'s obligations.]\n\n[CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player\nmembers and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due\nto deregistration.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007'),(406379,'rcs','00000001.00000590',2136,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007','Contests','Contests',1196654109,'Rule 2136/12 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an contract that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a\n party to it, and\n\n (e) is fair to all contestants.\n\n All parties to the contract who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJs 1792-1793 (called 13 November 2007): For a purported contest to\nallow any first-class player to become a party, the players must have\nat least 96 hours from first becoming aware of the agreement text to\nreview it in order to make an informed decision as to whether to\nconsent to it.]\n\n[CFJ 1797 (called 14 November 2007): To be \"fair to all contestants\" a\ncontract must be fair to all potential contestants, including ones\nthat are not presently actual contestants.\n\n[CFJ 1762 (called 3 October 2007): A purported contest that allows the\ncontestmaster to award points at eir discretion is thereby unfair, and\nthereby not a contest.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007'),(406380,'rcs','00000001.00000591',2136,'Amended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007','Contests','Contests',1196654291,'Rule 2136/13 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an contract that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a\n party to it, and\n\n (e) is a dependent contract.\n\n All parties to the contract who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to\n one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e is\n contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has been\n at any time during the preceding span of seven days.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJs 1792-1793 (called 13 November 2007): For a purported contest to\nallow any first-class player to become a party, the players must have\nat least 96 hours from first becoming aware of the agreement text to\nreview it in order to make an informed decision as to whether to\nconsent to it.]\n\n[CFJ 1797 (called 14 November 2007): To be \"fair to all contestants\" a\ncontract must be fair to all potential contestants, including ones\nthat are not presently actual contestants.\n\n[CFJ 1762 (called 3 October 2007): A purported contest that allows the\ncontestmaster to award points at eir discretion is thereby unfair, and\nthereby not a contest.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007'),(406381,'rcs','00000001.00000592',2177,'Created by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1196654510,'Rule 2177/0 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator declare a filibuster on a\n proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. During emergency session, any Senator may end a\n filibuster on a proposal with 4 supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding, and its voting period is not extended\n due to lack of quorum.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007'),(406382,'rcs','00000001.00000593',591,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1196654635,'Rule 591/21 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007'),(406383,'rcs','00000001.00000594',1922,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1196654821,'Rule 1922/20 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded to any player who has held a particular Office\n continuously for the specified duration. Each of these\n titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded to any person who wins the game.\n The Herald\'s report includes how the player won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded to any player who\n wins the game and does not already bear the title. If the\n number of players bearing this title is greater than the\n number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this\n title is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406384,'rcs','00000001.00000595',2175,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Retraction and Excess','Judicial Retraction and Excess',1196655033,'Rule 2175/1 (Power=1)\nJudicial Retraction and Excess\n\n If a judicial case has not had any judge assigned to it, then:\n\n a) Its initiator CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it\n to cease to be a judicial case.\n\n b) If its initiator previously initiated five or more cases\n during the same Agoran week as that case, then the Clerk of\n the Courts CAN refuse it by announcement, thus causing it to\n cease to be a judicial case.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406385,'rcs','00000001.00000596',2136,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007','Contests','Contests',1196655142,'Rule 2136/14 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an contract that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a\n party to it, and\n\n (e) is a dependent contract.\n\n All parties to the contract who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n For each contest which has been a contest for at least a week,\n and has as its contestmaster a first-class person who has been\n contestmaster of that contest for the entire past week and has\n not been the contestmaster of any other contest during the past\n week, the contestmaster CAN award a total of up to 10 points per\n week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJs 1792-1793 (called 13 November 2007): For a purported contest to\nallow any first-class player to become a party, the players must have\nat least 96 hours from first becoming aware of the agreement text to\nreview it in order to make an informed decision as to whether to\nconsent to it.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007'),(406386,'rcs','00000001.00000597',1551,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Ratification','Ratification',1196655317,'Rule 1551/11 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406387,'rcs','00000001.00000598',991,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1196655643,'Rule 991/10 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (7 November 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406388,'rcs','00000001.00000598',1868,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1196655643,'Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406389,'rcs','00000001.00000598',2158,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1196655643,'Rule 2158/2 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL assign an appropriate\n judgement to it as soon as possible. A judgement is valid\n and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. If more than\n one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between\n them is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has the same judge assigned to it, continuously for one week,\n the Clerk of the Courts CAN recuse that judge with cause by\n announcement. When these conditions have all held continuously\n for two weeks, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL so recuse that\n judge as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406390,'rcs','00000001.00000598',1504,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1196655643,'Rule 1504/17 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could\n not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007'),(406391,'rcs','00000001.00000599',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1196802738,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406392,'rcs','00000001.00000599',2148,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','The Ambassador','The Ambassador',1196802738,'Rule 2148/2 (Power=2)\nThe Ambassador\n\n The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for\n relations with foreign nomics.\n\n A foreign nomic may grant certain powers and privileges to\n Agora\'s ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally\n exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to\n other rules and orders.\n\n All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,\n to be the ambassador.\n\n[Cross-references (13 August 2007): the Ambassador\'s duties are:\n * advertise Agora (rule 2135)\n * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148)\n * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147)\n * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147)\n * report on protectorates (rule 2147)\n * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406393,'rcs','00000001.00000599',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1196802738,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not\nhave significance under the rules of Agora, so (for example) it is not\npossible to award a win by acting on behalf of Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(406394,'rcs','00000001.00000600',208,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007','Resolving Agoran decisions','Resolving Agoran decisions',1196811885,'Rule 208/5 (Power=3)\nResolving Agoran decisions\n\n The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve\n it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E\n SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting\n period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the\n following conditions:\n\n (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.\n\n (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.\n\n (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as\n described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters\'\n valid ballots on the various options.\n\n Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector.\n\n This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide\n another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.\n\n[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via a References: header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nrefers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an\nincomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give\nrevised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]\n\n[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice\nincludes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice\ninvalid.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007'),(406395,'rcs','00000001.00000601',2136,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007','Contests','Contests',1196842382,'Rule 2136/14 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an contract that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a\n party to it, and\n\n (e) is a dependent contract.\n\n All parties to the contract who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n For each contest which has been a contest for at least a week,\n and has as its contestmaster a first-class person who has been\n contestmaster of that contest for the entire past week and has\n not been the contestmaster of any other contest during the past\n week, the contestmaster CAN award a total of up to 10 points per\n week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJs 1792-1793 (called 13 November 2007): For a purported contest to\nallow any first-class player to become a party, the players must have\nat least 96 hours from first becoming aware of the agreement text to\nreview it in order to make an informed decision as to whether to\nconsent to it.]\n\n[CFJ 1818 (called 2 December 2007): A non-first-class contestmaster\ncategorically cannot award points.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007'),(406396,'rcs','00000001.00000602',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1196842953,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 23 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406397,'rcs','00000001.00000602',2136,'Amended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007','Contests','Contests',1196842953,'Rule 2136/14 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n A contest is an contract that\n\n (a) identifies itself as a contest,\n\n (b) identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster,\n\n (c) allows any First-class player to become a party,\n\n (d) is public, and is published before any contestants become a\n party to it, and\n\n (e) is a dependent contract.\n\n All parties to the contract who are not the contestmaster are\n its contestants.\n\n The Scorekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of points.\n\n For each contest which has been a contest for at least a week,\n and has as its contestmaster a first-class person who has been\n contestmaster of that contest for the entire past week and has\n not been the contestmaster of any other contest during the past\n week, the contestmaster CAN award a total of up to 10 points per\n week to one or more contestants as permitted by the contest.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A contest is a contract as\ngoverned by rule 1742.]\n\n[CFJ 1777 (called 4 November 2007): A purported contest that is\ncreated and then dissolved so quickly that there is no practical\nopportunity for unaware players to join it is thereby not allowing any\nfirst-class player to become a party, and thereby not a contest.]\n\n[CFJs 1792-1793 (called 13 November 2007): For a purported contest to\nallow any first-class player to become a party, the players must have\nat least 96 hours from first becoming aware of the agreement text to\nreview it in order to make an informed decision as to whether to\nconsent to it.]\n\n[CFJ 1817 (called 2 December 2007): For a contract to be a dependent\ncontract, where the term \"dependent contract\" is not explicitly\ndefined by the rules, it is not sufficient for the contract to be a\n\"dependent contract\" as defined by a particular player or by a\ncontract.]\n\n[CFJ 1818 (called 2 December 2007): A non-first-class contestmaster\ncategorically cannot award points.]\n\n[Cross-references (29 August 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2136)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007'),(406398,'rcs','00000001.00000603',869,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007','How to Join and Leave Agora','How to Join and Leave Agora',1196914550,'Rule 869/25 (Power=1)\nHow to Join and Leave Agora\n\n Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered\n (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is\n an entity whose citizenship is Registered.\n\n The verb \"to be registered\" means to become a player (i.e., to\n have one\'s citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),\n and the verb \"to be deregistered\" means to cease to be a player\n (i.e., to have one\'s citizenship changed from Registered to\n Unregistered). Where the verb \"to register\" or \"to deregister\"\n is used without an explicit direct object, the action is\n implicitly reflexive.\n\n A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by\n announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests\n registration, or requests permission to register.\n\n A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register\n within thirty days after doing so.\n\n A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class\n person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the\nRules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]\n\n[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear\ndesire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for\nregistration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner\nstipulated by the rules.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007'),(406399,'rcs','00000001.00000603',1023,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007','Common Definitions','Common Definitions',1196914550,'Rule 1023/22 (Power=2)\nCommon Definitions\n\n The following terms are defined:\n\n (a) The phrase \"as soon as possible\" means \"within seven days\".\n\n (b) The term \"paragraph\" means a subset of text determined as\n follows:\n\n (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply\n \"bulleted\") section is a unit of text.\n\n (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines.\n\n (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All\n unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has\n level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is\n nested inside.\n\n (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between\n those units which has level no greater than that of the\n unit appearing first.\n\n (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the\n hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty\n unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the\n beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of\n another unit if it appears after the latter, has\n strictly greater level, and is not separated from the\n latter by a barrier. The tree\'s ordering follows the\n order of the units in the document.\n\n (6) A \"paragraph\" identified by partial quotation is\n determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the\n entirety of that quotation.\n\n (7) A \"paragraph\" identified by an ordinal n is determined\n by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants.\n\n (8) A \"paragraph\" identified by enumerated section labels is\n determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from\n the root, using the specified series of labels.\n\n (c) Agoran epochs:\n\n (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.\n\n (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.\n\n (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of\n each Gregorian month.\n\n (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,\n April, July, and October begin.\n\n (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January\n begins.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994\nAmended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996\nAmended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007'),(406400,'rcs','00000001.00000603',1769,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Holidays','Holidays',1196914550,'Rule 1769/5 (Power=2)\nHolidays\n\n A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.\n\n During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any\n proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial\n case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial\n question.\n\n If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given\n time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the\n 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that\n action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.\n\n If some Rule bases the time of a future event upon the time of\n another event, or requires that a Player perform some action\n within some time of another event, and that other event occurs\n during a Holiday, the time at which the Holiday ends shall be\n used instead for the purpose of determining the time of the\n future event or of the time by which the Player must perform the\n specified action.\n\n This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the\n timing of events, and over all Rules which require Players to\n perform events before a specified time.\n\n The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24\n December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin\n after 2 January is a Holiday.\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an\nevent for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined\nperiod is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.]\n\n[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to\noccur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at\nits specified time even if that is during a holiday.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406401,'rcs','00000001.00000603',106,'Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1196914550,'Rule 106/8 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a\n proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406402,'rcs','00000001.00000603',2156,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Voting on Ordinary Proposals','Voting on Ordinary Proposals',1196914550,'Rule 2156/3 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Proposals\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir base voting limit on\n ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class player\n is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero. BVLOP\n cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir volatile voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. Changes to VVLOP are secured\n\n Each player has a parameter known as eir effective voting limit\n on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player is registered,\n eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of each week, each\n player\'s EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to an integer,\n breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is set to the\n same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any other\n means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s EVLOP.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir\n EVLOP at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406403,'rcs','00000001.00000603',2126,'Amended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1196914550,'Rule 2126/39 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR, and having met quorum, its proposer loses\n one orange VC, unless e lost a VC in this way earlier in\n the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1798 (called 16 November 2007): \"coauthor\" in the rules means\nanyone named as a coauthor by the proposal, regardless of their actual\nlevel of creative collaboration.]\n\n[CFJ 1806 (called 24 November 2007): \"VCs of different colors\" means\nthat all the VCs involved must be mutually distinct in color.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007'),(406404,'rcs','00000001.00000603',991,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1196914550,'Rule 991/10 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (7 November 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406405,'rcs','00000001.00000603',1868,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judge Assignment Generally','Judge Assignment Generally',1196914550,'Rule 1868/12 (Power=2)\nJudge Assignment Generally\n\n At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it\n (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.\n This is a persistent status that changes only according to the\n rules.\n\n At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge\n (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status,\n but is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned,\n the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by\n announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial\n case are the active first-class players, subject to modification\n by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge\n does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be\n judge of a case to which e is already assigned.\n\n When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a\n judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be\n the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is\n still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from\n that case by announcement.\n\n Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is\n secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.\n\n To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.\n Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing\n judge, if any. A recusal is \"with cause\" if and only if stated\n as such by the rules.\n\n[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select\na Judge who is qualified [\"eligible\" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the\ntime that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was\nqualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the\nidentity of that Player is announced.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406406,'rcs','00000001.00000603',1871,'Amended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007','The Standing Court','The Standing Court',1196914550,'Rule 1871/20 (Power=1.5)\nThe Standing Court\n\n Posture is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting,\n Leaning, and Supine (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value\n by announcement.\n\n A supine player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n judicial case. A sitting or leaning player is poorly qualified\n to be assigned as judge of any judicial case.\n\n Hawkishness is a player switch with values Hanging, Hugging, and\n Hemming-and-Hawing (default), tracked by the Clerk of the\n Courts. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.\n\n A hanging player is unqualified to be assigned as judge of any\n inquiry case. A hugging player is unqualified to be assigned as\n judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned\n as judge of any equity case.\n\n When the CotC assigns a standing player as judge of a judicial\n case, the player becomes sitting, except in the situation\n discussed in the next sentence. If the CotC assigns a standing\n player as judge of more than one judicial case consecutively in\n the same announcement, and states in the announcement that these\n are linked assignments, the player becomes sitting upon the last\n of these assignments, but not any of the earlier ones. The CotC\n SHOULD NOT perform linked assignments unless the cases being\n linked are closely related in their subject matter.\n\n The CotC CAN change all sitting players to standing by\n announcement. The CotC SHALL NOT do this unless there is a\n judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all\n entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e\n immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a\n judge to that case.\n\n When the CotC recuses a judge with cause, e SHALL flip that\n player\'s posture to supine by announcement within one week.\n\n[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing\nso.]\n\n[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change\na player\'s posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as\nlong as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate\ndue to the one-week time limit running out.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007'),(406407,'rcs','00000001.00000603',2157,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1196914550,'Rule 2157/1 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members, or with the\n majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC.\n By this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where\n the rules state that an action is performed by sending a\n message. A judicial panel can incur obligations. The members\n of a panel SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel\n satisfies all of its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\n[CFJ 1767 (called 21 October 2007): The agreement of the panel\'s\nmembers referred to in this rule is a state of affairs that does not\nrequire public messages in order to be brought into being.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007'),(406408,'rcs','00000001.00000603',2158,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Questions','Judicial Questions',1196914550,'Rule 2158/2 (Power=2)\nJudicial Questions\n\n A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial\n case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable\n (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but\n is evaluated instantaneously.\n\n At any time, each judicial question is either open (default),\n suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent\n status that changes only according to the rules. The possible\n types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of\n question.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case\n requires a judge.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid\n judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL assign an appropriate\n judgement to it as soon as possible. A judgement is valid\n and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. If more than\n one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between\n them is left to the judge\'s discretion.\n\n When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case\n has the same judge assigned to it, continuously for one week,\n the Clerk of the Courts CAN recuse that judge with cause by\n announcement. When these conditions have all held continuously\n for two weeks, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL so recuse that\n judge as soon as possible.\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement\nthat e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e\ncan be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been\ninappropriate.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406409,'rcs','00000001.00000603',591,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1196914550,'Rule 591/21 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide\n future play, including future judgements, but does not directly\n affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is\n ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant\n inquiry case judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007'),(406410,'rcs','00000001.00000603',1504,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1196914550,'Rule 1504/17 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could\n not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007'),(406411,'rcs','00000001.00000603',911,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1196914550,'Rule 911/16 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007'),(406412,'rcs','00000001.00000603',649,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1196914550,'Rule 649/24 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (7 November 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406413,'rcs','00000001.00000603',1367,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007','Degrees','Degrees',1196914550,'Rule 1367/10 (Power=1.5)\nDegrees\n\n Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are\n\n - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)\n - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.)\n - Master of Nomic (M.N.)\n - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)\n - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)\n\n Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with\n degrees listed later being ranked higher.\n\n A degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and\n CANNOT be revoked once awarded. The awarding of a degree is a\n secured change\n\n A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published\n a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree\n (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded).\n A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or\n of nomic in general. A thesis\'s suitability depends on its\n originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree\n to be awarded.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007'),(406414,'rcs','00000001.00000603',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1196914550,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406415,'rcs','00000001.00000604',2176,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','Marks','Marks',1196916343,'Rule 2176/1 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all,\n either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood\n from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) At the end of a proposal\'s voting period, each player who\n voted on it gains one Red Mark. If at least one of eir\n votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the ratio of eir FOR to\n AGAINST votes does not equal the proposal\'s adoption index,\n then e gains another Red Mark. If the proposal is adopted,\n and e was the only player to vote AGAINST it, then e gains\n another ten Red Marks, and the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+B) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-B) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(406416,'rcs','00000001.00000605',2126,'Amended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1196916412,'Rule 2126/40 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for 100\n days and has never been a player before that period, e\n gains one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1798 (called 16 November 2007): \"coauthor\" in the rules means\nanyone named as a coauthor by the proposal, regardless of their actual\nlevel of creative collaboration.]\n\n[CFJ 1806 (called 24 November 2007): \"VCs of different colors\" means\nthat all the VCs involved must be mutually distinct in color.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(406417,'rcs','00000001.00000606',2126,'Amended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1196916548,'Rule 2126/41 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor named in the proposal gains one\n Red VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1798 (called 16 November 2007): \"coauthor\" in the rules means\nanyone named as a coauthor by the proposal, regardless of their actual\nlevel of creative collaboration.]\n\n[CFJ 1806 (called 24 November 2007): \"VCs of different colors\" means\nthat all the VCs involved must be mutually distinct in color.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(406418,'rcs','00000001.00000607',2178,'Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007','Public Contracts','Public Contracts',1196917193,'Rule 2178/0 (Power=1)\nPublic Contracts\n\n A member of a contract CAN identify the contract as a public\n contract by publishing its text with a notice of intent from the\n contract be a public contract. The notice of intent MUST\n consist of one or more of:\n\n (a) a clause in the contract identifying it as public;\n\n (b) a notice indicating unanimous consent of members that the\n contract be public;\n\n (c) a notice published without objection of its members, that\n the contract be public.\n\n If the text of a potential contract is published by a person\n with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it\n forms, then it becomes public immediately upon becoming a\n contract.\n\n Changes in the text of a public contract do not become effective\n until they are published.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007'),(406419,'rcs','00000001.00000607',2136,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007','Contests','Contests',1196917193,'Rule 2136/15 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A first-class player who is a member of an existing public\n contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as\n the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not\n the contestmaster of another contest. Another first-class\n player who is a member may replace the current contestmaster as\n the sole contestmaster without 3 objections, but only as\n explicitly described in the contest regulations and provided e\n is not the contestmaster of another contest.\n\n Any player may make a contest cease to be a contest without 3\n objections. Players SHOULD decide on whether a contract\n deserves to be a contest based on its fairness or interest to\n players as a whole.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007'),(406420,'rcs','00000001.00000607',2179,'Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007','Points','Points',1196917193,'Rule 2179/0 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[Cross-references (5 December 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007'),(406421,'rcs','00000001.00000608',2177,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1196917455,'Rule 2177/1 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator declare a filibuster on a\n proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. During emergency session, any Senator may end a\n filibuster on a proposal with 4 supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding, and its voting period is not extended\n due to lack of quorum.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007'),(406422,'rcs','00000001.00000608',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1196917455,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (5 December 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406423,'rcs','00000001.00000608',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1196917455,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): if Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (5 December 2007): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)\n * recordkeepor of VCs (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406424,'rcs','00000001.00000609',2177,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1196917627,'Rule 2177/2 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator declare a filibuster on a\n proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator may end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007'),(406425,'rcs','00000001.00000610',2177,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1196917949,'Rule 2177/4 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any player who is a member of the roll call is a\n senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of the\n most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator declare a filibuster on a\n proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator may end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007'),(406426,'rcs','00000001.00000610',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1196917949,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): if Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (5 December 2007): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)\n * recordkeepor of VCs (rule 2126)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406427,'rcs','00000001.00000611',1681,'Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','The Logical Rulesets','The Logical Rulesets',1196918243,'Rule 1681/12 (Power=1)\nThe Logical Rulesets\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Short Logical\n Ruleset (SLR). In this format, each rule is assigned to a\n category, and the rules are grouped according to their category.\n\n Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between\n categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty\n categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.\n\n The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule\'s ID\n number, revision number, power, title, and text.\n\n The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any\n additional information in the SLR, except that which increases\n the readability of the SLR.\n\n There is a format of the ruleset known as the Full Logical\n Ruleset (FLR). In this format, rules are assigned to the same\n category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR\n must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and\n any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to\n record.\n\n The Rulekeepor is also free to include any other information\n which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the\n FLR.\n\n Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor shall\n record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:\n\n a) The type of change.\n\n b) The date on which the change took effect.\n\n c) The mechanism that specified the change.\n\n d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that\n proposal\'s ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(406428,'rcs','00000001.00000611',106,'Amended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1196918243,'Rule 106/9 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule\n which would permit a proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(406429,'rcs','00000001.00000611',1607,'Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007','The Promotor','The Promotor',1196918243,'Rule 1607/15 (Power=1)\nThe Promotor\n\n The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n receiving and distributing proposals.\n\n The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at\n any time. During each week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each\n proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning\n of that week.\n\n The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the\n clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is\n distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The\n distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of\n whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.\n\n When distributing a proposal, the Promotor SHALL specify the\n following:\n\n a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).\n b) Its adoption index.\n c) Whether it is ordinary or democratic.\n d) Whether it is interested or disinterested.\n\n Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the\n Promotor.\n\n The Promotor\'s report includes a list of all proposals in the\n Proposal Pool.\n\n[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a\nproposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the\nsubmitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted\nproposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of\nthe proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose\ntext consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating\nmatter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted\nproposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution\nof either of the submitted proposals.]\n\n[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute\na proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in\nthe proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)\ndistribution of a new proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new\nproposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a\nproposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning\nto the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential\ndifferences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the\nproposal on which it is based.]\n\n[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally\ncreates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is\nseriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new\nproposal has no author.]\n\n[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor\'s duties are:\n * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769)\n * distribute proposals (rule 1607)\n * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607)\n * report proposal pool (rule 1607)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996\nNull-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007'),(406430,'rcs','00000001.00000611',2126,'Amended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1196918243,'Rule 2126/42 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n[CFJ 1806 (called 24 November 2007): \"VCs of different colors\" means\nthat all the VCs involved must be mutually distinct in color.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007'),(406431,'rcs','00000001.00000612',2176,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5335 (Murphy), 8 December 2007','Marks','Marks',1197311260,'Rule 2176/2 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all,\n either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood\n from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is\n resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark.\n If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the\n ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the\n proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark.\n If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to\n vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and\n the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5335 (Murphy), 8 December 2007'),(406432,'rcs','00000001.00000613',2139,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007','The Registrar','The Registrar',1197311799,'Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)\nThe Registrar\n\n The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of players.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each player:\n\n a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.\n b) The date on which e most recently became a player.\n\n[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname\nby announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current\nnickname of another player.]\n\n[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,\npreviously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is\nsuccessful, but does not displace the target\'s existing name or\nnickname.]\n\n[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined\nelement of the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily\npublished with the registrar\'s report, is part of the game state, even\nthough it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track\nor publish it.]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the Registrar\'s duties are:\n * report senators (rule 2177)\n * track citizenship (rule 869)\n * report players\' identity and contact details (rule 2139)\n * report registration dates (rule 2139)\n * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130)\n * track forum publicity (rule 478)\n * report fora (rule 478)\n * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478)\n * announce white VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce white mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007'),(406433,'rcs','00000001.00000613',2138,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1197311799,'Rule 2138/2 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * announce green and cyan VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce green and cyan mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406434,'rcs','00000001.00000613',2137,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007','The Assessor','The Assessor',1197311799,'Rule 2137/1 (Power=1)\nThe Assessor\n\n The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.\n\n The Assessor is the default vote collector for all Agoran\n decisions that do not specify a different vote collector.\n\n[CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): if Assessorship changes\nhands, vote collection duties move with it.]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the Assessor\'s duties are:\n * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)\n * default vote collector for Agoran decisions (rule 2137)\n * report EVLOP (rule 2156)\n * recordkeepor of VCs (rule 2126)\n * announce red and orange VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce red and orange mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007'),(406435,'rcs','00000001.00000613',2126,'Amended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1197311799,'Rule 2126/43 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase\n another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase\n eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease\n another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply\n another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJ 1806 (called 24 November 2007): \"VCs of different colors\" means\nthat all the VCs involved must be mutually distinct in color.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007'),(406436,'rcs','00000001.00000613',2176,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007','Marks','Marks',1197311799,'Rule 2176/3 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all,\n either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood\n from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is\n resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark.\n If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the\n ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the\n proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark.\n If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to\n vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and\n the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\n Mark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as\n possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce\n VC awards of the same color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5335 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007'),(406437,'rcs','00000001.00000613',991,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Judicial Cases Generally','Judicial Cases Generally',1197311799,'Rule 991/10 (Power=2)\nJudicial Cases Generally\n\n A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a\n procedure to settle a matter of controversy.\n\n Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular\n features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case\n exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case\'s subclass\n CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to\n inquiry.\n\n The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for\n managing judicial activity. The CotC\'s report includes the\n status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have\n at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement.\n\n Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically\n been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,\n to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.\n\n[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously\nreferenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if\nthe number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those\ninvolved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]\n\n[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so\nit is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the Clerk of the Courts\' duties\nare:\n * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789)\n * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769)\n * announce blue and black VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce blue and black mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)\n * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019)\n * report open judicial cases (rule 991)\n * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991)\n * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175)\n * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868)\n * track player posture (rule 1871)\n * track player hawkishness (rule 1871)\n * change all sitting players to standing (rule 1871)\n * push over recused judge (rule 1871)\n * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158)\n * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504)\n * report active sentences (rule 1504)]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993\nAmended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994\nInfected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nMutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406438,'rcs','00000001.00000613',649,'Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1197311799,'Rule 649/24 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * announce violet and indigo VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce violet and indigo mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007'),(406439,'rcs','00000001.00000613',2179,'Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007','Points','Points',1197311799,'Rule 2179/0 (Power=1)\nPoints\n\n Points are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of points is\n restricted to players.\n\n Points are a currency. The number of points owned by a player\n is eir score.\n\n The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor\n of points.\n\n A player with 100 or more points may win the game by announcing\n this fact. Upon such an announcement, each player\'s score is\n set to zero.\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the Scorekeepor\'s duties are:\n * announce yellow VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce yellow mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)\n * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007'),(406440,'rcs','00000001.00000614',2126,'Amended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1197312633,'Rule 2126/44 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player wins the game, e gains two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum\n of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a game win occurs, each player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007'),(406441,'rcs','00000001.00000615',2138,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1197312796,'Rule 2138/2 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an office;\n its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and\n reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * announce green and cyan VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce green and cyan mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007'),(406442,'rcs','00000001.00000615',2126,'Amended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1197312796,'Rule 2126/45 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum\n of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406443,'rcs','00000001.00000615',649,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1197312796,'Rule 649/25 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * announce violet and indigo VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce violet and indigo mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406444,'rcs','00000001.00000615',1922,'Amended(21) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Defined Regular Patent Titles','Defined Regular Patent Titles',1197312796,'Rule 1922/21 (Power=1)\nDefined Regular Patent Titles\n\n The following are Patent Titles:\n\n (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown\n great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating\n of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or\n revoked.\n\n (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will\n Be known as \"Bard\", and granted those with wit.\n In order for the Title to be filled,\n A level of Support must call for it.\n\n Three players to a fourth may grant this name\n If these three write as one, with two Support.\n A current Bard may also grant the same,\n Provided that a second Bard\'s a sport.\n\n And so we don\'t the name of Bard debase,\n A Player with three Supporters can conspire\n To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:\n Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire.\n\n But lest we ruin some poor minstrel\'s fun\n No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.\n\n (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine\n Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be\n awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a\n particular Office continuously for the specified duration.\n Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player.\n\n (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who\n wins the game. The Herald\'s report includes how the player\n won.\n\n (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded to any player who\n wins the game and does not already bear the title. If the\n number of players bearing this title is greater than the\n number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this\n title is administratively revoked from the Speaker.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002\nAmended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406445,'rcs','00000001.00000616',2134,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007','Voting Limits are Limited','Voting Limits are Limited',1197312881,'Rule 2134/2 (Power=1)\nVoting Limits are Limited\n\n Upon a correct announcement that a single player\'s EVLOP is\n greater than the combined EVLOP of all other players, that\n player wins the game.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007'),(406446,'rcs','00000001.00000617',2172,'Created by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007','Acting on Behalf of Agora','Acting on Behalf of Agora',1197315085,'Rule 2172/0 (Power=1)\nActing on Behalf of Agora\n\n A player MAY perform an action on behalf of Agora with Agoran\n Consent.\n\n[CFJ 1801 (called 19 November 2007): This means that a player is\nprohibited from acting on behalf of Agora if e does not have Agoran\nConsent.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): Actions of Agora generally do not\nhave significance under the rules of Agora, so (for example) it is not\npossible to award a win by acting on behalf of Agora.]\n\n[CFJ 1714 (called 3 August 2007): Whether a player of Agora can take\ngame actions on behalf of Agora in a foreign nomic is determined\nsolely by the rules of the foreign nomic.]\n\n[CFJ 1821 (called 4 December 2007): A nonsensical word does not\nconstitute a description of an action that could hypothetically be\nperformed on behalf of Agora.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5246 (Levi), 14 October 2007'),(406447,'rcs','00000001.00000618',2126,'Amended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1197316882,'Rule 2126/45 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum\n of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJ 1829 (called 8 December 2007): The Accountor is not an office.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406448,'rcs','00000001.00000619',1504,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1198122012,'Rule 1504/18 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any player, by announcement which clearly specifies\n all of the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and defendant are each unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case. During the pre-trial phase, the defendant\n CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case,\n by announcement. If e disqualifies the judge, then the judge is\n recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could\n not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007'),(406449,'rcs','00000001.00000620',2152,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1198122569,'Rule 2152/2 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified player(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action is permitted.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007'),(406450,'rcs','00000001.00000621',2152,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007','Mother, May I?','Mother, May I?',1198122643,'Rule 2152/3 (Power=3)\nMother, May I?\n\n The following terms are defined. These definitions are used\n when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when\n a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take\n precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more\n players in connection with a term, then the term applies only to\n the specified player(s).\n\n 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to\n perform the described action are unsuccessful.\n\n 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing\n the described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 3. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the\n described action, the full implications of performing it\n should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\n 4. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.\n\n 5. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the\n rule in question.\n\n 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the\n described action violates the rule in question.\n\n 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform\n the described action, the full implications of failing to\n perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007\nPower changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007'),(406451,'rcs','00000001.00000622',2169,'Amended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1198122693,'Rule 2169/1 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all\n the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit\n arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The\n pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned\n as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week, the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement between\n the parties. In this role it is subject to modification or\n termination by the usual processes governing binding agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to\n the contract in question by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007'),(406452,'rcs','00000001.00000623',106,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1198122795,'Rule 106/10 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007'),(406453,'rcs','00000001.00000624',2177,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007','The Senate','The Senate',1198122867,'Rule 2177/5 (Power=2)\nThe Senate\n\n A Senator is any Player who has been registered continuously for\n the immediately preceding sixty days. The collection of\n Senators is the Senate. The Registrar\'s report includes a list\n of all Senators.\n\n A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senate\n supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any\n time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts for\n 21 days after being called. The Assessor\'s report includes the\n most recent date on which an emergency session was called.\n\n The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at\n the time the emergency session was called. During emergency\n session, the previous definition of senator does not apply;\n instead, any player who is a member of the roll call is a\n senator. The Assessor\'s report includes the roll call of the\n most recent emergency session.\n\n During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster\n on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators,\n provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the\n past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4\n supporting Senators.\n\n A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a\n quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the\n contrary notwithstanding.\n\n When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators\' postures\n become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while\n the session lasts.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007'),(406454,'rcs','00000001.00000625',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1198140075,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406455,'rcs','00000001.00000626',478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1198171466,'Rule 478/22 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007'),(406456,'rcs','00000001.00000626',106,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007','Adopting Proposals','Adopting Proposals',1198171466,'Rule 106/10 (Power=3)\nAdopting Proposals\n\n A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,\n including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making\n other explicit changes to the gamestate.\n\n A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear\n indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which\n places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its\n author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it\n from the Pool by announcement.\n\n A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is\n distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its\n author as being its co-author at the time of submission.\n\n Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.\n For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and\n PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the\n proposal.\n\n The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1,\n with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at\n the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A\n Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All\n other Proposals are Democratic.\n\n If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,\n then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it\n from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and\n its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not\n otherwise take effect.\n\n Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.\n This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a\n proposal to take effect.\n\n[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe heading \"Proposal:\" and a title can be sufficient to clearly\nindicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it\ncan be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with\nthe question \"What is the title of this proposal?\" can be sufficient\nto clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]\n\n[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two\nseparate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the\nattempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the\npossible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly\nrequires a different resolution.]\n\n[CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not\ngoverned by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal\nthat is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to\nhave retroactive effect.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994\nAmended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994\nRenumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994\nInfected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007'),(406457,'rcs','00000001.00000626',1742,'Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1198171466,'Rule 1742/10 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007'),(406458,'rcs','00000001.00000627',2126,'Amended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1198175741,'Rule 2126/45 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum\n of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[CFJ 1829 (called 8 December 2007): The Accountor is not an office.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406459,'rcs','00000001.00000628',2156,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Voting on Ordinary Proposals','Voting on Ordinary Proposals',1198191712,'Rule 2156/4 (Power=2)\nVoting on Ordinary Proposals\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir base voting\n limit on ordinary proposals (BVLOP). The BVLOP of a first-class\n player is four, and the BVLOP of any other player is zero.\n BVLOP cannot be modified.\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir volatile\n voting limit on ordinary proposals (VVLOP). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. Changes to VVLOP\n are secured\n\n Each player has an associated number known as eir effective\n voting limit on ordinary proposals (EVLOP). Whenever a player\n is registered, eir EVLOP is set to eir BVLOP. At the end of\n each week, each player\'s EVLOP is set to eir VVLOP, rounded to\n an integer, breaking ties towards odd integers, and eir VVLOP is\n set to the same rounded value. EVLOP cannot be modified by any\n other means. The assessor\'s report includes each player\'s\n EVLOP.\n\n The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities\n that were active players at the start of its voting period. The\n voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is eir\n EVLOP at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded\n up) if the voter is in the chokey at the start of the voting\n period.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(406460,'rcs','00000001.00000629',2176,'Amended(4) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Marks','Marks',1198191924,'Rule 2176/4 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all,\n either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood\n from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is\n resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark.\n If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the\n ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the\n proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark.\n If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to\n vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and\n the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark. When a concurring opinion is published, the\n prior judge loses a number of Blue Marks equal to its error\n rating.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\n Mark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as\n possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce\n VC awards of the same color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5335 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(406461,'rcs','00000001.00000629',911,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1198191924,'Rule 911/17 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(406462,'rcs','00000001.00000630',591,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1198192015,'Rule 591/22 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n person, by announcement which includes the statement to be\n inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(406463,'rcs','00000001.00000631',2157,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007','Judicial Panels','Judicial Panels',1198192176,'Rule 2157/2 (Power=1.7)\nJudicial Panels\n\n A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more\n persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging\n judicial cases. A judicial panel\'s membership cannot change,\n and if two panels have the same membership then they are the\n same panel. Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any\n specific act of formation.\n\n A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its\n members sending a message identified as being from the panel,\n with the unanimous agreement of the panel\'s members, or with the\n majority agreement of the members and the consent of the CotC.\n The CotC SHOULD consent to a majority action if the panel has\n made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus. By this\n mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the\n rules state that an action is performed by sending a message. A\n judicial panel can incur obligations. The members of a panel\n SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of\n its obligations.\n\n[CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a\nperson.]\n\n[CFJ 1767 (called 21 October 2007): The agreement of the panel\'s\nmembers referred to in this rule is a state of affairs that does not\nrequire public messages in order to be brought into being.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007'),(406464,'rcs','00000001.00000631',911,'Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007','Appeal Cases','Appeal Cases',1198192176,'Rule 911/18 (Power=1.7)\nAppeal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case.\n An appeal case\'s purpose is to determine the appropriateness of\n a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and\n make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment\n of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is\n referred to as the prior assignment; the word \"prior\" in this\n rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior\n assignment.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal\n case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused\n by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player\n with 2 support.\n\n The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case\n are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each\n of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior\n case and none of the members is the prior judge.\n\n An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is\n applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The\n valid judgements for the question on disposition are:\n\n * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for\n the prior question\n\n * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes\n that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement\n if given a new opportunity\n\n * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the\n appropriateness of the prior judgement\n\n * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior\n question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate\n in the prior question and the replacement judgement is\n appropriate for the prior question\n\n Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question\n suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on\n disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the\n question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according\n to that judgement:\n\n * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior\n question again\n\n * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused,\n and the prior question is rendered open again\n\n * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement\n judgement is assigned to the prior question\n\n A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM,\n and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior\n judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part.\n Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s)\n in the prior judge\'s reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an\n error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by\n the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else\n defaults to 50.\n\n In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any\n panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with\n Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record\n of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision.\n\n[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a\njudgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]\n\n[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form \"I\ncall for the appeal of \" has the effect of initiating the\nAgoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993\nAmended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993\nAmended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994\nAmended by Rule 750, May 4 1994\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007'),(406465,'rcs','00000001.00000632',1742,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1198192578,'Rule 1742/11 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(406466,'rcs','00000001.00000632',2136,'Amended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Contests','Contests',1198192578,'Rule 2136/16 (Power=1)\nContests\n\n A first-class player who is a member of an existing public\n contract CAN make the contract into a Contest, with emself as\n the sole contestmaster, without 3 objections, provided e is not\n the contestmaster of another contest. Another first-class\n player who is a member may replace the current contestmaster as\n the sole contestmaster without 3 objections, but only as\n explicitly described in the contest regulations and provided e\n is not the contestmaster of another contest.\n\n The minimum number of parties for a contest is one. Any player\n may make a contest cease to be a contest without 3 objections.\n Players SHOULD decide on whether a contract deserves to be a\n contest based on its fairness or interest to players as a whole.\n\n The total number of points a Contest MAY award in a given week\n is equal to 5 times the number of its members that are first-\n class players. Points up to this total CAN be awarded by the\n contestmaster to other members by public announcement, and MUST\n be awarded as explicitly described in the contract.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(406467,'rcs','00000001.00000632',2180,'Created by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Locations','Locations',1198192578,'Rule 2180/0 (Power=1)\nLocations\n\n A location is a public contract that describes itself as a\n location. A person who becomes a party to a location is said to\n move to that location. A person who is a party to a location is\n said to be in that location. A person who ceases to be a party\n to a location is said to leave that location.\n\n A person cannot be in more than a single location at one time.\n A person who moves to a location automatically leaves any\n location e is already in. Whenever a person\'s location does not\n permit em to leave it, e CANNOT move to any other location.\n\n The minimum number of parties for a location is zero.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(406468,'rcs','00000001.00000633',2181,'Created by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007','The Accountor','The Accountor',1198192994,'Rule 2181/0 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(406469,'rcs','00000001.00000633',2126,'Amended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1198192994,'Rule 2126/45 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum\n of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5241 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406470,'rcs','00000001.00000633',2176,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007','Marks','Marks',1198192994,'Rule 2176/5 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all,\n either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood\n from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).\n\n The Accountor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is\n resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark.\n If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the\n ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the\n proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark.\n If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to\n vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and\n the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark. When a concurring opinion is published, the\n prior judge loses a number of Blue Marks equal to its error\n rating.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\n Mark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as\n possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce\n VC awards of the same color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5335 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(406471,'rcs','00000001.00000634',2176,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Marks','Marks',1198193467,'Rule 2176/6 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all,\n either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood\n from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).\n\n The Accountor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is\n resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark.\n If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the\n ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the\n proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark.\n If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to\n vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and\n the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark. When a concurring opinion is published, the\n prior judge loses a number of Blue Marks equal to its error\n rating.\n\n (+m) When, during the observance of Agora\'s unbirthday, a player\n publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains 2N+1 magenta\n Marks (where N is Agora\'s age rounded down to the nearest\n integer), unless e previously gained Marks in this manner\n during the same unbirthday.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\n Mark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as\n possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce\n VC awards of the same color.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5335 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(406472,'rcs','00000001.00000634',1727,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Happy Birthday','Happy Birthday',1198193467,'Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)\nHappy Birthday\n\n WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world\'s only MUD-based nomic, Nomic\n World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed\n nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;\n\n And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an\n Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial\n Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets\n of Nomic World and other nomics,\n\n And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of\n Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for\n discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,\n 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER\n Michael Norrish, which read, in part,\n\n \"I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no\n precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we\n may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are\n invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be\n published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest\n convenience.\"\n\n And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known\n unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on,\n until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,\n and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard\n work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of\n Agoraphobes,\n\n And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora\'s\n founding,\n\n BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Birthday is defined to be\n the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\n BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora\'s Unbirthday is defined to\n be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,\n since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire\n days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005\nAmended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(406473,'rcs','00000001.00000635',2138,'Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007','The International Associate Director of Personnel','The International Associate Director of Personnel',1198193650,'Rule 2138/3 (Power=1)\nThe International Associate Director of Personnel\n\n The International Associate Director of Personnel is an\n low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track\n of officers and reports.\n\n The IADoP\'s report includes the following:\n\n a) The holder of each office.\n b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.\n c) The date of the most recent attempt to achieve Agoran Consent\n for changing the holder of that office.\n\n[CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International Associate Director\nof Personnel is the Director of Personnel.]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the IADoP\'s duties are:\n * hold election for office where contested (rule 2154)\n * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2154)\n * report officeholding (rule 2138)\n * announce green and cyan VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce green and cyan mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)\n * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(406474,'rcs','00000001.00000636',1728,'Amended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Dependent Actions','Dependent Actions',1198193880,'Rule 1728/17 (Power=2)\nDependent Actions\n\n An announcement of intent to perform a dependent action,\n unambiguously describing the action and method of dependent\n action, initiates the Agoran decision of whether to approve the\n action. For this decision:\n\n (a) The vote collector is the announcer.\n\n (b) The available options are SUPPORT and OBJECT.\n\n (c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately\n before it is resolved, whichever comes first.\n\n (d) The eligible voters are those entities that were active\n first-class players at the start of the voting period,\n except for any entities disqualified by the rule specifying\n that the action can be performed dependently.\n\n (e) The voting limit of each eligible voter is one.\n\n (f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if\n it was initiated more than fourteen days ago, or (if it has\n an objection and/or majority index) less than four days ago.\n\n (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector performs\n the action upon resolving the decision.\n\n (h) The announcer, by virtue of the announcement of intent,\n implicitly submits a ballot of SUPPORT on the Agoran\n decision, if e is an eligible voter and does not explicitly\n repudiate this implication in the announcement.\n\n The specification in the rules that an action can be performed\n dependently does not prohibit performing that action\n independently if doing so would otherwise be permissible.\n\n[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need\nnot be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description\nsuffices, as does the rule-defined term.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000\nPower changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001\nAmended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(406475,'rcs','00000001.00000636',2124,'Amended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Methods of Dependent Actions','Methods of Dependent Actions',1198193880,'Rule 2124/5 (Power=1)\nMethods of Dependent Actions\n\n The following methods of dependent actions are defined:\n\n (a) With N Supporters. For this method, the support index is\n N+1. \"With Support\" is synonymous with \"With 1 Supporter\".\n\n (b) Without N Objections. For this method, the objection index\n is N. \"Without Objection\" is synonymous with \"Without 1\n Objection\".\n\n (c) With N Agoran Consent. For this method, the majority index\n is N. \"With Agoran Consent\" is synonymous with \"With 1/2\n Agoran Consent\".\n\n[CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase \"by Agoran Support\" is\nnot an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(406476,'rcs','00000001.00000637',591,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1198194065,'Rule 591/23 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(406477,'rcs','00000001.00000637',1504,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1198194065,'Rule 1504/19 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could\n not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(406478,'rcs','00000001.00000637',2169,'Amended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Equity Cases','Equity Cases',1198194065,'Rule 2169/2 (Power=1.7)\nEquity Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.\n An equity case\'s purpose is to correct a potential injustice in\n the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be\n initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which\n clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the\n contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not\n proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not\n limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual\n obligations).\n\n The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.\n During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the\n pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all\n the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit\n arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The\n pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so\n informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that\n they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.\n\n The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.\n\n An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements\n that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.\n A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably\n equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to\n the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the\n parties in the course of the case.\n\n When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a\n judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past\n week, the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement between\n the parties. In this role it is subject to modification or\n termination by the usual processes governing binding agreements.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to\n the contract in question by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated\nwith the rules as the subject contract.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(406479,'rcs','00000001.00000638',2181,'Created by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007','The Accountor','The Accountor',1198194259,'Rule 2181/0 (Power=1)\nThe Accountor\n\n The Accountor is an office; its holder is responsible for\n keeping track of assets.\n\n The Accountor is the default recordkeepor for all assets that do\n not specify a different recordkeepor.\n\n[Cross-references (20 December 2007): the Accountor\'s duties are:\n * default recordkeepor for assets (rule 2181)\n * recordkeepor of marks (rule 2176)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007'),(406480,'rcs','00000001.00000639',2176,'Amended(6) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007','Marks','Marks',1198220845,'Rule 2176/6 (Power=2)\nMarks\n\n Marks are a class of assets. Ownership of Marks is restricted\n to persons.\n\n Each Mark has exactly one color. Each color of Mark is a\n currency. If a player is meant to lose a Mark of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a Mark of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no Marks at all, then e loses a VC of the same\n color as the Mark e is meant to lose, gains 100 Marks of that\n color, and then loses the Mark; however, if e has no VCs at all,\n either, then the Mark loss is waived (you still can\'t get blood\n from a turnip, not even a thimbleful at a time).\n\n The Accountor is the recordkeepor of Marks.\n\n Marks are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+r) When the Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal is\n resolved, each player who voted on it gains one Red Mark.\n If at least one of eir votes is FOR or AGAINST, and the\n ratio of eir FOR to AGAINST votes does not equal the\n proposal\'s adoption index, then e gains another Red Mark.\n If the proposal is adopted, and e was the only player to\n vote AGAINST it, then e gains another ten Red Marks, and\n the author gains ten Red Marks.\n\n (-r) When a proposal\'s voting period is extended because it\n would fail quorum, each eligible voter who has not voted on\n it loses five Red Marks. When a proposal meets quorum but\n is rejected, and only one player (other than possibly the\n author) voted FOR it, then that player loses ten Red Marks,\n and the author loses ten Red Marks.\n\n (+g) At the end of each month, for each office without a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains one Green Mark, unless another person\n deputised for that office while that player held that\n office during that month, in which case the deputising\n player gains one Green Mark.\n\n (+b) When a person calls for judgement, e gains one Blue Mark,\n except as noted below. When a judgement that caused the\n loss of a Blue Mark as noted below is overturned, the\n caller gains one Blue Mark. When a judicial panel judges\n an appeal case, each member gains one Blue Mark.\n\n (-b) When a person calls for judgement, and has already done so\n at least five times in the same week, e loses two Blue\n Marks. When an inquiry case is judged IRRELEVANT, or a\n criminal case is judged OVERLOOKED, ALREADY TRIED, or\n UNIMPUGNED, the caller loses one Blue Mark. When a\n judicial panel is recused with cause, each member loses one\n Blue Mark. When a concurring opinion is published, the\n prior judge loses a number of Blue Marks equal to its error\n rating.\n\n (+m) When, during the observance of Agora\'s unbirthday, a player\n publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains 2N+1 magenta\n Marks (where N is Agora\'s age rounded down to the nearest\n integer), unless e previously gained Marks in this manner\n during the same unbirthday.\n\n Only valid, unretracted votes count toward the conditions for\n gaining and losing Red Marks.\n\n Marks may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless\n the color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend 100 Marks of the same color to gain one VC\n of that color.\n\n Mark awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as\n possible after they occur, by the officer required to announce\n VC awards of the same color.\n\n[CFJ 1847 (called 20 December 2007): When a person calls for\njudgement, and has already done so at least five times in the same\nweek, e is not awarded a blue mark by section (+b).]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5299 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(1) by Proposal 5321 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 5335 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007'),(406481,'rcs','00000001.00000640',478,'Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007','Fora','Fora',1198298272,'Rule 478/22 (Power=3)\nFora\n\n Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of\n any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player\n shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.\n\n Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and\n Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.\n\n The Registrar\'s report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign\n publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive\n messages there.\n\n The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without\n objection as long as:\n\n (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and\n\n (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which\n the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all\n existing public fora.\n\n Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each\n public forum.\n\n A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum\n or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of\n intent to be public. A player \"publishes\" or \"announces\"\n something by sending a public message.\n\n Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed \"by\n announcement\", a player performs that action by announcing that\n e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is\n performed at the time date-stamped on that message.\n\n[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into\nmultiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game\npurposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the\nsingle message.]\n\n[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is\nobligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending\nsomething to the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can\nreceive the PF.]\n\n[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is\nnot necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]\n\n[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is \"received\" when the\nmessage enters the recipient\'s normal technical domain of control,\nwhether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared\nmachine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not\ncontrol it).]\n\n[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and\nelsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text \'with the\nclear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal\'\n(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the\ncollection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum\nis rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been\nsent via a public forum.]\n\n[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in\nthe message body; the subject line is insignificant.]\n\n[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading\nsubject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is\na different action from publishing the whole message.]\n\n[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of \"publishing\" or\n\"announcing\" is accomplished when the message has left the sender\'s\ntechnical domain of control, indicated by one of the \"Received:\"\nheaders.]\n\n[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature\ncan\'t directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its\nmembers sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement\nsays so.]\n\n[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have\npublic messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that\nallows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific\napproval.]\n\n[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by\ncontractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by\nannouncement on eir behalf.]\n\n[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one\nwishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can\nconstitute an announcement that performs that action.]\n\n[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed\nby announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case\nthat would result from that action does not constitute performing the\naction.]\n\n[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):\nSaying \"I do X 1000 times\", where X is something that can be done by\nannouncement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of \"I do\nX\", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,\nbecause it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances\nof \"I do X\".]\n\n[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying \"I do X 10000 times\", where\nX is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily\nachieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of \"I do\nX\" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is\nabusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being\nsuccessful.]\n\n[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form \"I\ndo X N times\" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of \"I do\nX\", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have\nthe effect of M instances of \"I do X\" for any non-zero repeat count\nM.]\n\n[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will\naccomplish an action even if its author believed the action was\nimpossible.]\n\n[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be\nretroactive.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995\nAmended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995\nAmended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996\nAmended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007'),(406482,'rcs','00000001.00000640',591,'Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Inquiry Cases','Inquiry Cases',1198298272,'Rule 591/23 (Power=1.7)\nInquiry Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.\n An inquiry case\'s purpose is to determine the veracity of a\n particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any\n first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement\n to be inquired into.\n\n The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the\n case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one\n person from assignment as judge of the case.\n\n An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is\n always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and\n logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically\n true at the time the inquiry case was initiated\n\n * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically\n undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately\n described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry\n case was initiated\n\n * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at\n the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the\n game\n\n * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or\n too vague, or if the information available to the judge is\n insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and\n UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as\n to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute\n insufficiency of information for this purpose\n\n The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the\n reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play\n (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the\n veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to\n annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case\n judgements.\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot take the place\nof a statement in initiating an inquiry case.]\n\n[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement\ncan be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public\nknowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine\nit.]\n\n[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement\nlogically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called\nCFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this\nas a situation of insufficient information being available.]\n\n[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge\nto hunt down or request the information that would be required to\nrender a substantive judgement.]\n\n[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around\nthe interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not\nprovide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled\nto treat this as a situation of insufficient information being\navailable.]\n\n[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a\nparticular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player\nholds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that\noffice.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993\nAmended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993\nAmended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996\nInfected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial\nInfected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,\n substantial\nAmended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997\nAmended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999\nAmended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(406483,'rcs','00000001.00000640',1742,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007','Contracts','Contracts',1198298272,'Rule 1742/11 (Power=1.5)\nContracts\n\n Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among\n themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and\n be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a\n contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the\n set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract\n may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract\n automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls\n below the minimum number of parties defined by the rules for\n that contract. If not otherwise specified, the minimum number\n of parties for any contract is two.\n\n Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in\n accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired\n by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or\n between the contract and the rules.\n\n A public contract is a contract that identifies itself as such.\n Any other contract is private.\n\n[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e\nagrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying\nwho this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate\nwho can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to\nthe contract by announcement.]\n\n[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an\notherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to\nbe bound by the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an\nagreement categorically cannot violate it.]\n\n[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not\nimplicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties,\nto modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract\nbetween all the parties, including the contract being modified or\nterminated.]\n\n[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive\noperations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of\nthe parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have\nretroactive effect.]\n\n[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract\ncannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining\njusticiability of the contract.]\n\n[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able\nto define terms used by the rules.]\n\n[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create\nnew ways of winning the game.]\n\n[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a\nparty in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by\nthat party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nRetitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007'),(406484,'rcs','00000001.00000641',1504,'Amended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007','Criminal Cases','Criminal Cases',1198298489,'Rule 1504/19 (Power=1.7)\nCriminal Cases\n\n There is a subclass of judicial case known as a criminal case.\n A criminal case\'s purpose is to determine the culpability of a\n particular person, known as the defendant, for an alleged breach\n of the rules, and to punish the guilty. A criminal case CAN be\n initiated by any first-class person who is a member of the basis\n of any player, by announcement which clearly specifies all of\n the following:\n\n a) The identity of the defendant.\n\n b) Exactly one rule allegedly breached by the defendant.\n\n c) The action (which may be a failure to perform another action)\n by which the defendant allegedly breached this rule.\n\n The initiation of a criminal case begins its pre-trial phase.\n In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL as soon as possible inform\n the defendant of the case and invite em to rebut the argument\n for eir guilt. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the\n defendant has been so informed. At any time during the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN end the pre-trial phase by\n announcement.\n\n The initiator and each member of the defendant\'s basis are\n unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. During the\n pre-trial phase, the defendant CAN disqualify one person from\n assignment as judge of the case, by announcement. If e\n disqualifies the judge, then the judge is recused.\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is\n applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The\n valid judgements for this question are:\n\n * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred\n at least 200 days before the case was initiated\n\n * ALREADY TRIED, appropriate if judgement has already been\n reached in another criminal case with the same defendant, the\n same rule, and substantially the same alleged act\n\n * UNIMPUGNED, appropriate if the alleged act was not proscribed\n by the specified rule at the time it allegedly occurred\n\n * INNOCENT, appropriate if the defendant did not perform the\n alleged act\n\n * SLIPPERY, appropriate if the information available to the\n judge is insufficient to determine beyond a reasonable doubt\n whether or not the defendant performed the alleged act\n\n * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act, but has good reason why e could\n not avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious\n\n * GUILTY, appropriate if the defendant breached the specified\n rule via the specified act and none of the above judgements is\n appropriate\n\n A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is\n applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has\n a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable\n question on sentencing which has a judgement, the defendant is\n hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on\n sentencing is known as the sentence, and the sentence is in\n effect.\n\n Some types of sentence include a duration known as the tariff.\n When a sentence with a tariff is in effect, the sentence is\n thereafter either active or not. The sentence is inactive for\n the first week after it first takes effect. Thereafter, the\n sentence is active if and only if it is still in effect and\n sentences of the same type on the same question on sentencing\n have been active for a total duration less than the tariff. The\n CotC\'s report includes the status of all active sentences.\n\n The valid sentences are:\n\n * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if\n any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.\n Has no effect.\n\n * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten words (the prescribed words),\n appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in\n effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours publish a formal\n apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed\n words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire\n for self-improvement. The ninny is only obliged to publish\n one apology per question on sentencing, even if sentences of\n this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more\n than once.\n\n * FINE with an integer from 1 to 100, appropriate for rule\n breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny\n SHALL within 72 hours destroy the specified number of Marks,\n or 1 VC, of the color(s) of eir choice. The ninny is only\n obliged to perform one destruction per question on sentencing,\n even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or\n go into effect more than once.\n\n * CHOKEY with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied\n by the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for rule breaches of\n intermediate severity. While a sentence of this type is\n active, the ninny is in the chokey. No entity is in the\n chokey except as required by this rule.\n\n * EXILE with a duration (the tariff) up to 60 days multiplied by\n the power of the highest-power rule allegedly broken,\n appropriate if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably\n correlated with the length of the tariff, the middle of the\n tariff range being appropriate for severe rule breaches\n amounting to a breach of trust. While a sentence of this type\n is active, the ninny is exiled. No entity is exiled except as\n required by this rule. If an exiled entity is ever a player,\n e is deregistered. An exiled entity CANNOT register.\n\n An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal\n case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a\n judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by the defendant\n by announcement.\n\n[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is\nexpressed in the form \"violating rule NNNN by XXX\", the alleged act\nfor the purposes of the rules is only \"XXX\".]\n\n[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is\nappropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that\neir action is legal when it is not.]\n\n[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to\n\"APOLOGY\" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words\nconstitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of\nprescribed words.]\n\n[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): A string of letters that has no\ndefined meaning in any extant language does not qualify as a word for\nthe purposes of constituting a set of prescribed words for an APOLOGY\nsentence.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996\nAmended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996\nInfected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial\nAmended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002\nAmended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nRetitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nPower changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007'),(406485,'rcs','00000001.00000642',101,'Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007','Agoran Rights and Privileges','Agoran Rights and Privileges',1198305168,'Rule 101/7 (Power=3)\nAgoran Rights and Privileges\n\n The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or\n privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement\n or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or\n remove a person\'s defined rights. A person\'s defined privileges\n are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding\n agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any\n rule which would allow restrictions of a person\'s rights or\n privileges.\n\n i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.\n\n ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is\n not regulated.\n\n iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to\n resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable\n expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.\n Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration\n of any judicial determination that e should be punished.\n\n iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to\n a binding agreement. The absence of a person\'s explicit,\n willful consent shall be considered a refusal.\n\n v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by\n an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has\n not had the reasonable opportunity to review.\n\n vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.\n\n vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than\n once for any single action or inaction.\n\n viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than\n continue to play.\n\n Please treat Agora right good forever.\n\n[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]\n\n[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if\nno Rule says so.]\n\n[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according\nto the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate\nany retroactive changes made in the future.]\n\n[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those\nwho play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they\nhave the rule-defined status of \"player\".]\n\n[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules\nwithin a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the\nRules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]\n\n[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which\nother players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself\na violation of that rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the\nfora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,\nand is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner\nand type of participation.]\n\n[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not\npublish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the\nright of participation in the fora.]\n\n[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing\napplies only to those who have the rule-defined status of \"player\",\nnot to those who play the game in the broader sense without having\nthat official status.]\n\nHistory:\nInitial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993\nMutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995\nAmended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007'),(406486,'rcs','00000001.00000643',1551,'Amended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007','Ratification','Ratification',1198305752,'Rule 1551/11 (Power=3)\nRatification\n\n A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.\n\n An official document is a public document purported to be part\n (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the\n document\'s scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an\n official document, specifying its scope. The date of this\n ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part\n of the official report in question, until the same scope is\n ratified at a later date.\n\n Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is\n ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and\n publicly challenged during that period via one of the following\n methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:\n\n a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal\n interpretation.\n\n b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The\n publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim\n of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or\n denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original\n document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is\n challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during\n that period.\n\n When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so\n that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at\n the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a\n public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel\n any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or\n overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action.\n\n[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying\ndocument [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran\ndecision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually\nor as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some\naspect of it.]\n\n[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of\na self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]\n\n[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official\ndocument affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to\nbe part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally\nreported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on\ncertain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list\nof players.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996\nInfected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998\nAmended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nPower changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005\nAmended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007'),(406487,'rcs','00000001.00000644',2182,'Created by Proposal 5373 (Levi, Murphy), 22 December 2007','Making Wagers','Making Wagers',1198370243,'Rule 2182/0 (Power=1)\nMaking Wagers\n\n A Wager is an announcement specifying the following:\n\n (a) A statement that is, or will become, true or false,\n\n (b) The number and color of Marks being wagered, which MUST be\n less than or equal to the number of Marks possessed by that\n player, and\n\n (c) The outcome wagered on by the offering player.\n\n Any other player with Marks greater than or equal to the amount\n of the Wager CAN accept it by announcement, unless the Wager has\n already been accepted. E thereby wagers on the opposite outcome\n from that wagered on by the offering player.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5373 (Levi, Murphy), 22 December 2007'),(406488,'rcs','00000001.00000644',2183,'Created by Proposal 5373 (Levi, Murphy), 22 December 2007','Resolving Wagers','Resolving Wagers',1198370243,'Rule 2183/0 (Power=1)\nResolving Wagers\n\n A Wager MAY be resolved when the following conditions are met:\n\n (a) The Wager has been accepted, and\n\n (b) The statement that is the subject of the Wager is either\n true or false.\n\n An accepted Wager CAN be resolved by a correct announcement\n specifying the truth value of the statement, which must be\n exactly one of true or false.\n\n As soon as possible after a Wager is resolved the player who\n wagered on the incorrect outcome MUST transfer the agreed number\n and color of Marks to the player who wagered on the correct\n outcome.\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 5373 (Levi, Murphy), 22 December 2007'),(406489,'rcs','00000001.00000645',2126,'Amended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Voting Credits','Voting Credits',1198388688,'Rule 2126/45 (Power=2)\nVoting Credits\n\n Voting Credits (VCs) are a class of fixed assets that can be\n used to affect voting limits on ordinary proposals. Changes to\n VC holdings are secured. Ownership of VCs is restricted to\n players.\n\n Each VC has exactly one color. Colors with different names are\n distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of VC is\n a currency. If a player is meant to lose a VC of a color that e\n does not possess, then e loses a VC of eir Party\'s color\n instead; if e has no VCs at all, then the loss is waived (you\n can\'t get blood from a turnip).\n\n The Assessor is the recordkeepor of VCs.\n\n VCs are gained and lost as follows:\n\n (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted, its proposer gains\n a number of Red VCs equal to the proposal\'s adoption index\n times its interest index (rounded down to the nearest\n integer), minus the number of Red VCs that e has gained in\n this way earlier in the same week (down to a minimum of\n zero), and each coauthor of the proposal gains one Red VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-R) When a proposal\'s voting index is less than half its\n adoption index, its proposer loses one Red VC, unless e\n lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no\n valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains one orange VC\n unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (-O) When an interested proposal is rejected by voting with no\n valid votes FOR (other than possibly from its author), and\n having met quorum, its proposer loses one orange VC, unless\n e lost a VC in this way earlier in the same week.\n\n (+G) At the end of each month, for each office with a report,\n the player (if any) who held that office for the majority\n of that month gains two Green VCs (if the office has a\n weekly report) or one Green VC (if it has only a monthly\n report), unless another person deputised for that office\n while that player held that office during that month.\n\n (-G) At the end of each month, for each office, for each player\n who has held that office during that month, if another\n person deputised for that office while that player held\n that office during that month then that player loses one\n Green VC.\n\n (+C) When a player deputises for an office e gains one cyan VC,\n unless someone previously gained a VC in this manner for\n the same office in the same month.\n\n (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question\n other than a question on sentencing, and has not violated a\n requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit, e\n gains one blue VC.\n\n (-B) A player who is recused from a judicial case with cause\n loses one Blue VC. A player who is the prior judge in an\n appeal case where a judgement other than AFFIRM is assigned\n to the question on disposition loses one Blue VC.\n\n (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on\n sentencing, and has not violated a requirement to submit\n that judgement within a time limit, e gains one black VC.\n\n (-K) In a criminal case, when a sentence becomes active for the\n first time the defendant loses one black VC.\n\n (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player and has never\n been a player before, e gains one white VC. When a\n first-class person has been a player continuously for at\n least three months and has never been a player before that\n period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not\n named a mentor in this fashion before), e and that player\n each gain one white VC.\n\n (+M) When, during Agora\'s birthday, a player publicly\n acknowledges the occasion, e gains one magenta VC, unless e\n previously gained a VC in this manner during the same\n birthday.\n\n (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains\n two ultraviolet VCs.\n\n (+V) When a person is awarded a patent title, e gains one violet\n VC, unless e gained a VC in this way earlier in the same\n month.\n\n (-V) When a person has a patent title revoked from em, and the\n instrument that authorises the revocation does not describe\n the revocation as administrative, e loses one violet VC.\n\n (+I) When a person is awarded a patent title that is a degree, e\n gains a number of indigo VCs. The number depends on the\n rank of the degree: it is two for the lowest rank, four for\n the next, and so on increasing by two per rank, up to a\n maximum of twelve for the sixth and higher ranks. If the\n rank of the degree is not adequately defined to apply this\n rule then the number is two.\n\n (-*) One second before the end of each month, each entity loses\n 1/5 of eir holdings of each color of VC, rounded down to\n the nearest integer.\n\n (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded\n points to at least three different contestants during that\n month, the contestmaster gains one Yellow VC.\n\n VCs may be spent as follows, by announcement (INVALID unless the\n color is specified):\n\n a) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase another player\'s VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n b) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to increase eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.\n\n c) A player may spend N+1 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to decrease another player\'s VVLOP by N (to a minimum\n of zero).\n\n d) A player may spend N+2 VCs, each of a color distinct from the\n rest, to multiply another player\'s VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where\n 1 <= N <= 10.\n\n e) A player may spend two VCs of the same color to make another\n player gain one VC of that color.\n\n z) If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors\n for VCs, a player may spend one VC of each such color to win\n the game.\n\n When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, each\n player\'s VVLOP is set to eir BVLOP.\n\n VC awards and penalties SHALL be announced, as soon as possible\n after they occur, by the following officers:\n\n Assessor - Red, Orange\n IADoP - Green, Cyan\n CotC - Blue, Black\n Registrar - White\n Herald - Violet, Indigo\n Scorekeepor - Yellow\n Accountor - all others\n\n[CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): a decrease of VVLOP cannot\nbe by a negative number.]\n\n[Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient\nabbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of\nVC: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope,\nIndigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink,\naQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX,\nYellow, Zinnwaldite.]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006\nAmended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007\nAmended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007\nAmended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007\nAmended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007\nAmended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007\nAmended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nAmended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007\nAmended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007\nPower changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007\nAmended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007\nAmended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007\nAmended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007\nAmended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007\nAmended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007\nAmended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007\nAmended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007\nAmended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007\nAmended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007\nAmended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007\nAmended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007\nAmended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007\nAmended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007\nAmended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007\nAmended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007\nAmended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007\nAmended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007\nAmended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007\nAmended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007\nAmended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'),(406490,'rcs','00000001.00000645',649,'Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007','Patent Titles','Patent Titles',1198388688,'Rule 649/25 (Power=1)\nPatent Titles\n\n A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person\'s\n distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is\n responsible for tracking patent titles.\n\n A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the\n announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to\n make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as\n soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the\n award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial\n question contesting the validity of the conditions.\n\n When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said\n to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from\n a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The\n status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as\n explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald\'s report includes a\n list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a\n list of which persons Bear it.\n\n As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,\n the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.\n\n[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by\nthe rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the\nsame spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same\npatent title.]\n\n[CFJ 1561 (called 29 April 2005): A patent title cannot be borne by a\nnon-person.]\n\n[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is\nborne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent\ntitle is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]\n\n[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for a person to bear\nmore than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.]\n\n[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent\ntitle X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special\nmeaning, it is correct to say that that person \"is an X\".]\n\n[Cross-references (8 December 2007): the Herald\'s duties are:\n * announce violet and indigo VC awards and penalties (rule 2126)\n * announce violet and indigo mark awards and penalties (rule 2176)\n * report Patent Titles (rule 649)\n * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649)\n * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922)\n * report the manner of wins (rule 1922)\n * report win dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)]\n\nHistory:\nCreated by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993\n...\nAmended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994\nAmended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995\nAmended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996\nAmended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996\nAmended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic\n (unattributed)\nAmended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial\nAmended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial\n (unattributed)\nAmended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999\nAmended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999\nAmended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999\nAmended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000\nAmended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000\nAmended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001\nAmended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001\nAmended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003\nAmended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005\nAmended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005\nAmended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006\nAmended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007\nAmended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007\nAmended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007\nAmended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007\nAmended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007\nAmended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007\nAmended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007'); /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `rules` ENABLE KEYS */; UNLOCK TABLES; /*!40101 SET SQL_MODE=@OLD_SQL_MODE */; /*!40014 SET FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS=@OLD_FOREIGN_KEY_CHECKS */; /*!40014 SET UNIQUE_CHECKS=@OLD_UNIQUE_CHECKS */; /*!40101 SET CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT=@OLD_CHARACTER_SET_CLIENT */; /*!40101 SET CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS=@OLD_CHARACTER_SET_RESULTS */; /*!40101 SET COLLATION_CONNECTION=@OLD_COLLATION_CONNECTION */; /*!40111 SET SQL_NOTES=@OLD_SQL_NOTES */;